Doug Henwood wrote:
>I take the civil society argument very seriously, which is why I'm against
>it.
heh. same argument j. cotter and her comRods in struggle used to use when she'd go ballistic w/ a redorange critique.
>Or, more precisely, the kind of civil society crap so fashionable with
>liberal philanthropists and Third Way philosophers. It is a realm ruled
>largely by capital, both of the monetary and cultural/symbolic sort, with
>absolutely no democratic accountability and minimal disclosure.
that's why i specified it as something other than "can't we all just get along CS" and neo-lib NGOs. debates over what exactly civil society is, and the variety of meanings it has extend back at least to the Scotish Moralists who envisioned something rather different than Hegel and Marx did.
>What some South Africans call a working class civil society is another
>beast entirely, something I'm entirely for. But that's not a real live
>option in the U.S. right now.
>Doug
why do you approve of the working class CS model? and why so you say we lack this as an options?
kelley
“touch yourself and you will know that i exist.” ~luce irigaray