I guess I'm getting sucked into another one. . .
first of all when you speak of "liberal" groups as being anti-systemic,
do we mean the anti-systemic movements of FDR, Lord Keynes, the British
labor party,the liberalism of European Social-Democratic parties? (that's
sarcasm.)
If it's pro-enhancing the capital accumulatory process, it's pro-system.
If it's says "ouch! the accumulatory process is hurting me stop it or
slow down," it's anti-systemic. Coal miner's strikes, Kenyans refusing to
pay "Hut Taxes" to British Empire, Brazilian Indians oppose clear-cutting
of their forests are all example of groups opposing the accumulatory
process. The Zapatistas are anti-systemic, the Assembly of
God isn't. Wallerstein has stated that Jihad is anti-systemic. I guess
there's that book I haven't read, McDonalds v. Jihad about local
opposition to the global economy.
Anyhow, I am continually puzzled by your interest in WST.
Are there any writers on WST that you feel coincide with your own view-point?
On Wed, 22 May 1996, Greg Ehrig wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, anti-systemic movements are those
> which more or less do not approve, benefit from, or support the
> (undefined) "system". But, only liberal groups can be anti-systemic,
> and religious ones cannot?
> I had trouble seperating out any of the movements that you think are
> anti -system, so I still am confused as to your argument. Could you do
> something like this :?
>
> anti-system: PLN, castro, harmonica virgins, etc.
>
> pro-system: Mobil Oil, Boy Scouts, American Autoduel Association.
> etc.....
>
> Not being a sociologist, I have a little trouble separating ideas from
> adjectives :=>
>
>