We are obviously not on the same wavelength and I am not sure whether it is important.
Anyone subscribing to a list like this presumably thinks it is important to think consciously about politics and economics. At least 80% of the population do not. They live their lives existentially, and where they have political or economic views these are simple reflections in the ideological realm of their class position and their limited experience.
They are no less dignified than subscribers to this list. Perhaps more so, because they have the dignity of universality.
>>The victories in winning
>>hegemonic ascendancy in the emerging global civil society have been huge.
>>
>>And in a humble way, lists such as this have contributed to them.
>
>That, OTOH, sounds a bit too Uriah Heep-ish.
So perhaps overall the tone is right. But to be objective suppose this list by its general tone and the arguments it has collated, rehearsed and deepened has had some ripple of influence on one or thow thousand people, that is small compared to the magnitude of the courage of hundreds of thousands of people who have shifted and are shifting perceptions now. There are people who have lost their jobs. Commentators who risk being called traitors. Individuals who risk being shunned by people they love for taking a different stand to that of others.
The essence of my argument is that there is a progressive wing to a global civil society that numbers at least several tens of millions.
To say anything more than that lists like these have contributed to the movement of opinion in a humble way is to make a claim for which I know of no evidence.
How is a Gramscian battle for hegemonic position, fought except by faith that one is contributing to something much larger than oneself?
Chris Burford
London