And polity is inextricably tied to economy (changes in one require changes in the other), and is also very important (though I am not sure it is equally important).
Ecology is paramount because it is the basis of our lives.
But let’s dissect examples where kinship, sex, race or religion are equally important as economy. It seems to me that most of the problems in those spheres today (especially on the West) have an overwhelmingly material cause. And those spheres are over-emphasized to the detriment of economic justice, participation and classlessness. So I still think it is more important to emphasize the economic basis over those spheres.
I think the issue isn’t or ought not be importance per se – however one might measure that – it is the need to address the various focuses, so to speak, in order to be able to create effective movements of sufficient size to win changes now, and a new society in time. Also, posing one as material, and others as not. Is that at all true”? In either direction? That is, economics and class are far from just material, and race, gender, and power, say, are far from not material. What does material even mean?
Many associate socialism with dictatorship, state control, and massive failure in various countries. Thus we need careful analysis of what it might be, or of whatever would replace or displace capitalism.
Capitalism, of course, is “beneficial” for the few at the cost and exclusion of the many. Plus, countries that has tried socialism usually will come under the most severe opposition by a country like the US that sees any country that attempts to exercise its own sovereignty or independence as committing some original and unacceptable sin against the US. This is the nature, of course, of imperial powers.
Very important is Michael’s statement “…tomorrow’s Marxists would note that utilizing hierarchical structures in economic and/or political or social institutions risk ushering in coordinator rule (as well as creating an environment uncongenial to widespread worker involvement.)
Yes, “tomorrow’s Marxists,” they will have their legitimate and needed place even as they intelligently bring new insights and analyses to the table.
And polity is inextricably tied to economy (changes in one require changes in the other), and is also very important (though I am not sure it is equally important).
Ecology is paramount because it is the basis of our lives.
But let’s dissect examples where kinship, sex, race or religion are equally important as economy. It seems to me that most of the problems in those spheres today (especially on the West) have an overwhelmingly material cause. And those spheres are over-emphasized to the detriment of economic justice, participation and classlessness. So I still think it is more important to emphasize the economic basis over those spheres.
Hi,
I think the issue isn’t or ought not be importance per se – however one might measure that – it is the need to address the various focuses, so to speak, in order to be able to create effective movements of sufficient size to win changes now, and a new society in time. Also, posing one as material, and others as not. Is that at all true”? In either direction? That is, economics and class are far from just material, and race, gender, and power, say, are far from not material. What does material even mean?
Excellent analysis, I enjoyed reading it.
Many associate socialism with dictatorship, state control, and massive failure in various countries. Thus we need careful analysis of what it might be, or of whatever would replace or displace capitalism.
Capitalism, of course, is “beneficial” for the few at the cost and exclusion of the many. Plus, countries that has tried socialism usually will come under the most severe opposition by a country like the US that sees any country that attempts to exercise its own sovereignty or independence as committing some original and unacceptable sin against the US. This is the nature, of course, of imperial powers.
Very important is Michael’s statement “…tomorrow’s Marxists would note that utilizing hierarchical structures in economic and/or political or social institutions risk ushering in coordinator rule (as well as creating an environment uncongenial to widespread worker involvement.)
Yes, “tomorrow’s Marxists,” they will have their legitimate and needed place even as they intelligently bring new insights and analyses to the table.
HI,
Happy to hear it and that you took the article precisely as intended…