(H/t John Robb for turning me on to this). As a brief followup to what I wrote earlier today on how all the typical definitions of political philosophies (liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism) are all modern constructs, constructs that to me are largely outdated, check out this talk by Nils Gilman on what he terms deviant globalization. In this worldwide scenario of what he calls a post-progressive future, or what Bobbitt calls the market-state (which has destroyed the concept of a nation-state functionally) does it make sense to talk about political labels/affiliations in the way we have done in the past?
What has largely filled the void politically in the post-progressive era West are salesmen/entertainment leaders (Clinton, Blair, Sarkozy, Obama, even Bush in his own faux folksy way). In the future I wonder if it will be more like Gilman lays out. Whenever the specter of corporation plus state (or state as corporation or vice versa) comes out then the “f” word immediately enters the discussion (fascism). But again fascism was about social engineering–remember it was a modern phenomenon. Using the state qua corporation to enforce some social utopia–typically through the imposition of mass violence against all dissenters. These guys are not into social engineering. More likely than a liberal fascist future is Poulos’ Pink Police State.
Anyway, enjoy, this is a brilliant discussion.
Sounds like the Wm. Gibson novel “Neuromancer,” where the characters deal with multi-national corporations instead of governments.Report
One wonders what countries would be like if they could exile anyone they didn’t feel like keeping around. One wonders what they’d be like if they had to compete for people X skilled or better.Report
How can Ronald Reagan possibly be excluded from this list?
What has largely filled the void politically in the post-progressive era West are salesmen/entertainment leaders (Clinton, Blair, Sarkozy, Obama, even Bush in his own faux folksy way). Report