Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts

20 January 2019

Utopistics: is it time for an alternative social system?

The Blog


Can and will there be an alternative world-system? In social science, this is what the emerging field of utopistics is for.


Use the video below to get a brief breakdown of what utopistics is about...




... or, continue reading


Utopistics is a necessary field, because of the crisis-ridden nature of our present economic system and the fact it is constructed of injustices and exploitation. Part of world-systems analysis or world-systems theory (a theory of International Relations from Immanuel Wallerstein), utopistics focuses on paradoxes and choices that will lead to the transformation of present world political and economic relations.

Current reigning economic and political theories focus overwhelmingly either on a nationalist-protectionist settlement of perceived faults and injustices in the global economy or - conversely - the neoliberal model of hyper-capitalist globalization and US political dominance. Anti-systemic movements are movements of minorities, anti-imperialists and the political left, aimed at securing a non-capitalist economic model. While their grievances against injustices and exploitation are clear, such movements are perceived to not offer a clearly defined alternative to the current neoliberal economic consensus. It is this alternative that utopistic study could produce.

It appears that parties of the political left give little heed to the works of sociologists at present and derive their ideas mainly from other prominent economists, such as Mariana Mazzucato in the case of the UK's Labour Party.


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

10 May 2016

Millennials hate capitalism and greed

The Blog


In a May 1st article appearing at the Center for a Stateless Society website, anti-statist writer Kevin Carson explains why Millennials tend to respond positively to the term "socialism" in poll results. Capitalism gets a much more negative reaction.


This is especially relevant now as people wonder why the "democratic socialist" Bernie Sanders was able to go toe-to-toe with corporate backed Hillary Clinton for Democratic Party nomination as President of the United States. It happened despite many Americans (likely older generations) despising anything called "socialism" and assuming it to be solely the work of North Korea or Joseph Stalin.

Carson explained that the Millennial generation is distressed by the greed and oppression brought about by modern corporate capitalism. Many young people are familiar with the ideas of academics who try to explain just how disfiguring and tyrannical current capitalism is. Rampant capitalism is is actually coercing even the capitalists' favorite bogeyman - the regulatory state - just for its own profit.

Alluding to sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein's theory (read all our coverage of Wallerstein) of the expansion of capitalism across the world, Carson writes that Millennials have got it right if they associate capitalism with greed and power rather than freedom:
Historical capitalism began five or six centuries ago, not with free markets, but with the conquest of the free towns by the absolute states and the mass expropriation of peasants from their traditional rights to the land by the landed oligarchy, and continued with the colonial conquest of most of the world outside Europe. Since then capital has continued to rely heavily on the state to socialize its operating costs, erect barriers to competition, and enforce illegitimate title to all the land and natural resources engrossed in previous centuries. This history of conquest, robbery and enslavement is in the basic genetic code of contemporary corporate capitalism.
Some writers have tried to explain away Millennials' positive views of socialism with the condescending assertion they are "confused" about dictionary definitions. Carson dismissed this assertion as "dumb" and devoid of any comprehension of history.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

27 October 2015

US not a hegemonic power: Wallerstein

The Blog


Immanuel Wallerstein, leading sociologist and historian of the world-system who once labelled the US as the global "hegemon", believes the US has lost its crown.


Wallerstein's theory of the world-system posits that the world economy is divided between "core" and "periphery" countries, the former specializing in high-tech labor and the latter specializing more in resource extraction and manufacture of more basic products. This division of labor is seen by Wallerstein is the primary cause of continued poverty and powerlessness in the Global South. On top of this system, in Wallerstein's theory, the US was the "hegemon", as the British Empire was and the Netherlands was prior to them.

For Wallerstein to declare the US "not a hegemonic power", as he did in a recent commentary on October 15, is something that must be taken seriously. Something dramatic has happened to the United States and the reach of its political and military power.

We may compare the retreat of US power to the excesses it enjoyed in the past. As Wallerstein says, "it isn’t even the most powerful actor in this fragmented region". As US power plummets, the American regime is forced to work with regimes it had previously ignored or attacked with impunity.

Rather than being US-led, US policy towards Syria is increasingly pulled along by its weaker allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and no coherence exists in supposed US-led efforts in the region. To quote Wallerstein's own analysis of the unfolding strategic US defeat in Syria:
If we turn to Syria, “coherent” is the last adjective one can apply to U.S. policy. On the one hand, it has sought to form an international “coalition” of countries committed to defeating the still expanding Islamic State (IS, also Daesh or ISIL). The United States also is committed in theory to the destitution of Bashar al-Assad. What the United States does not wish to do is to commit troops to still another Middle Eastern civil war zone. Instead, the United States offers to fight IS with drones that will bomb IS units, without even having any troops on the ground that could guide the drones. The consequence, inevitably, is “collateral damage” that intensifies anti-American feelings in Syria.
If the single greatest proponent of a unified theory of world history describes the US as losing its leading political status in the world, we must begin to ask serious questions. Why has the US been defeated in Syria? Who did this, and now who will take America's place when the hawks are dead?


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

28 July 2015

Evil symbol vs. evil symbol?

The Blog


While the elimination of symbols of the Confederacy may be a necessary, if belated, way of combating injustice, we must be careful not to be drawn into a battle of symbols that is ultimately as superficial as the symbols themselves.


That is the warning issued by top social scientist Immanuel Wallerstein. Alluding to the apparent distinctions between the flag of the US federal government and the former Confederacy, Wallerstein wrote, "It is all too easy in the struggle against one noxious set of symbols to install in our collective value system another noxious set of symbols".

Included was of course the recognition that "symbols matter", but what matters more is changing what the symbols stood for. The absence of Confederate flags would have done nothing to prevent the numerous police killings of unarmed Black people that continue to stain the reputation of the United States as a supposedly multiracial and tolerant society. Removing the Confederate flag does not guarantee "less racism" as racism is a deeper problem than the allegiance to a flag (a contagion that exists everywhere today including among government officials and is not unique to racists in any way).

Wallerstein reminds us that symbols, as with many institutions of the modern state, are designed to exclude and even kill people on an arbitrary basis. Dislike of something as trivial as women's headwear in Europe is now the basis for much discrimination and also political discussion in western countries now, which represents a fascination with superficial cultural trappings and scapegoats.

Ultimately, all people in the human family are part of multiple and overlapping groups and we have to make compromises about symbols rather than getting into some kind of match where one symbol of a murderous state is pitted against another symbol of a murderous state, as if one is really the antithesis of the other.

The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

Featured

Five Actions that Definitively Disqualify Trump for his Coveted Nobel Peace Prize

I am especially proud to be the first President in decades who has started no new wars. — Donald Trump, Farewell Address, 20 January 2021 I ...

Follow Me on Twitter