integer on Sat, 11 Mar 2000 14:14:00 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] (no subject)

>[a south-african friend who lives in germany sent me the following question
>which i would like to throw into the round for comments from nettimers;
>michael will initially follow things through the archive; abroeck]
>I turn to you with a  strange little question. In discussion with my
>contact in South Africa, Berend, we have come up with a query. This is in
>the context of globalism on the one hand, and local (S.A.) politics. On the
>question of 'ethical' business, responsibilty (George Soros) and
>cooperation of NGO's and individuals  with this developement
>(globalisation). I know this is a buzz word, but for want  of a better one
>I use it as it is.
>Soros talks of a global community, as guiding  and 'discipling' force, to
>function alongside global financial economics. This is a call for
>leadership and authority. Certainly in the light of the power that
>multi-nationals and global business generally has, I'd support the argument
>for controls, so that the poor or economically weak are not totally
>dis-enfranchised. Foucault and Guattari, support the idea of
>micro-politics, decentralised, fragmented and at all levels of society. I
>can  support this idea, and in terms of what is and has been taking place
>over the last years, the role of sub-culture etc., I think it is also
>'true' of our postmodern reality.
>Berend is an old Marxist, who is calling for an anti-authoritarian
>politics, in principle, I support this (I've just taken a  look at the
>attitudes of Marx, Engels and Lenin to the Anarchists), although  coming
>from the stance of revolutionary theory, ie., organised resistance, I  find
>it hard to understand how fragmented, leaderless oppostion can have any
>effect on a powerful system.  

organised resistance = dze `powerful` system
= fasc!zm = 0+1 mass movmnt!pe.t!pe/Nebula.m81||USISK.sit.hqx

Nettime-bold mailing list