The last two posts remind me of Corbett's developmental spin on the topic.
"Any discussion of socialism these days must keep in mind the developmental distinctions of socialism: Stalin and Mao were red-authoritarian and blue-traditional state socialists, with orange-industrialist aspirations. The USSR and Mao's China
never had communism, those were state socialist dictatorships in a
mostly agrarian society (red-blue), something Marx suggested could not
develop into communism because you cant skip levels of development,
meaning you cant skip the stage of orange-capitalism and its dialectics
of development for the means (technology and resources) and capabilities
(knowledge, skills, and organization) to emerge whereby a global
communist society could eventually thrive.
"Castro and Chavez (as well as present
day China to a lesser extent) are orange-industrial state socialists by
virtue of their need to develop their underdeveloped countries (although
the American embargo has made this difficult for Cuba). Even America
could be considered an orange-socialist state insofar as there are
massive welfare subsidies to corporations and the rich. Orange-green or
modern-postmodern socialism can be found mainly in the European and Scandinavian models of the pre-austerity welfare state. An integral yellow
socialism has not yet existed on a large scale, but when and if it does
emerge I think it will be the precondition for the eventual emergence
of an egalitarian or communist non-dual turquoise society that would simultaneously create and be created by Buddha-Christ citizens.
"Keeping these socio-developmental distinctions in mind, if what we want
at this point in the crisis or failure of modern and postmodern
capitalist values and institutions is an integral post-postmodern
society at yellow, it's probably not going to be a kinder-gentler 'conscious capitalism' (a functional modern-postmodern system), but rather a libertarian eco-socialism;
that is to say, a low fossil-fuel permaculture based society organized
around self-managed decentralized local communities of direct democracy
federated into regional, national, and global governing bodies. Local
communities would be much more energy generating and autonomous than
they are today, and the people themselves would decide directly how they
would live among themselves, not mediated by representatives "under the
influence" of big money or far removed from the lives of the citizenry,
but through the independent municipalities where they live and work in
citizens' assemblies, workers councils, trade unions, and peer-2-peer
cooperatives. So it's not that there wouldn't be a city, state, and
national structure under an organizational mode of libertarian
eco-socialism (a post-postmodern integral society), but how that
structure operated within and between the parts would be vastly
different."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.