I have serious problems with CSOs being preoccupied with the Weberian-type bureaucracy, but I'd like to think that the common objectives directed to MPA management, the "sense of belonging" to a single cause and the relative flexibility of their "rules and procedures" qualify them as CSOs. Was it Ostrom's group who wrote that 'conventional' theories are not sufficient to explain the dynamics of managing the commons?
A French technocrat, Aglietta(?) used some of Marx ideas in developing some sort of a regulation theory and compared society to a balloon, the burgeoning middle (representing the middle class) makes it possible to float in the air but widen either the base or the top and it immediately falls down. There's more of us going down to the base.
There's no shortage of brilliant minds interpreting the world in various ways, but only a few are up to the challenge of actually "changing it". The vanguards of the proletariat are now part of the executive that manages the affairs of the bourgeoisie. They're in Congress engaging in self-referential monologues.
You have to see To Live, an interesting perspective of China during the Communist Civil War, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, told not in an overly political and dramatic sense. There's no car chase but a lot of chasing counter-revolutionists, you can't tell the difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment