> I find this Hobson's choice between individualism or statism a bit
> depressing, really. The great social movements of the nineteenth and
> early twentieth centuries were far from being either. The incorporation
> of the left in the mid-twentieth century was the beginning of the end.
> Far from entrenching collective values, this corporatism left most
> people atomised, having surrendered all collective initiative to a power
> ranged against them. The new social movements differ from the old in
> that they are all incorporated from the beginning. If insisting upon
> independence from the state makes me a libertarian then so be it.
What are you counterposing to the state? Syndicalism/ communalism or individualism? The former is clearly more plausible than the latter.
If the former, wouldn't a successful syndicalism seek the ultimate ratification: sovereignty?
> . . .
> It isn't irony (though perhaps the example was). I mean to say, to the
> Black caucus that Carrol cites, perhaps, that identities are something
>From your vantage point you may not realize it's
not anything so uniform as a caucus. It's a very
diverse agglomeration of groups and personalities,
many quite distant from any affinity for ID politics.
I agree with most of the rest of your post.
Cheers,
MBS