 |
|  |
 |
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000 time: 05:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by BeBro
I´d be interested in post-socialist and new pluralist. Seriously now - why those distictions, what is new pluralism? Isn´t pluralism enough? |
Pluralism (of the standard kind) involves a plurality of interests (usually economic or ideological) competing for power. New Pluralism involves a plurality of identities competing for power. In other words, it means that I want a society where many different groups- genders, classes, sexualities, cultures, religions, ages, etc. decide on stuff together, each brininging their unique insights and interests into the decision, each having a fair share of political power, none trampling over the others.
Post-socialist means I reject the one-dimensional class struggle of socialism in favour of many idenitity struggles, where genders, sexualities, etc. are oppressed and excluded from power. I want to allow the "weak" groups in each case to gain more say in the way soiciety is run and make them participate more in the decision-making processess. Of course, I also want groups to be flexible and not run internally by elites if I can help it.
Couple this with Feminism (the belief in such a struggle in the male-female gender axis), Civic Republicanism (the belief that the best way to achieve a good society is citizenship and participation controlled by a rigid, fair constitution) and Radical Democracy (a radical left-wing belief in the democratic process) and you've got a pretty coherent ideology I think.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000 time: 05:30
|
|
consociation just means an "association by fellowship or alliance" (according to my dictionary), ie. people with differences agreeing to something together. Consotiationalism (which is a bollocks word, I agree) was launched by some woman I can't remember the name of (I need to read Anne Phillips's "Democracy and Difference" again!) and basically contests that the most democratic thing to do would be to replace political parties with groups divided according to identity. In other words, instead of the socialists selecting their representatives, the women, blacks, christians etc. would select theirs, thus ensuring a fair division of power and each groups' interests being looked after.
I don't like it becuase I think it makes groups too rigid (ooh, Queer theory creeping in, watch out!), and because it focuses too much on elites within each group. I also don't think such a system is a good replacement for democracy, possibly a compliment.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|