Interesting . . . .
You say you want a revolutionSTEPHEN ERIC BRONNER is Distinguished Professor (PII) of Political Science and the Senior Editor of Logos. His many works include Socialism Unbound (Columbia University Press) and Critical Theory: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press)
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
~ "Revolution," The Beattles
Read the whole article.Notes on the Counter-Revolution
by Stephen Eric Bronner
Counter-revolution has gripped the American imagination. Neo-Conservatism was the dominant ideological expression of the new millennium and the Tea Party is today on the march. They have roots in the beginnings of American history and, like their predecessors everywhere, they are the reaction against the prospect of radical — if not always — revolutionary change. Modernity is the crucible in which both counter-revolution and revolution were forged. Both make reference to a notion of progress that speaks not merely to the growth of capitalism but to the privileging of individuality, social equality and the liberal rule of law. There never was a true ideological consensus. Counter-revolution and revolution always provided fundamentally divergent responses to the constraint on arbitrary institutional power. The point for departure in theory and practice, indeed, was the burgeoning bourgeoisie of the 17th century that began an attack upon the ancient regime with coalitional support from other classes contemptuous of throne and altar. Partisans of this undertaking sought to substitute capitalism for feudal social relations, a republic for the monarchical state, and a new secular ideology for religious dogma. With its insistence upon individual enterprise and scientific innovation, the liberal rule of law and the assault upon traditional authority, scientific reason and moral autonomy, the Enlightenment crystallized what became known as the “age of democratic revolution.”
The crowning achievements of this enterprise were the three great democratic revolutions that occurred in England (1688), the United States (1776) and France (1789). All of them were predicated on the vision of a new constitutional order in which equal citizens of diverse background and different interests might determine their fate together peacefully under the liberal rule of law. Constitutionalism and suffrage rejected—in principle—the idea of individuals living without explicit human rights in a “community” bound together by land and custom. The principle, of course, did not instantly translate into fact and, thus, there began the long struggle for suffrage by excluded groups. All of their most important representatives -- from Mary Wollstonecraft to Martin Luther King, Jr. -- pointed to the implicit demands generated by universal ideals and the prejudiced society that denied them. It only makes sense that the formation of a liberal and secular order should have been welcomed not only by those Jews seeking entry into gentile society, but—what is so often forgotten— also by those seeking freedom from the theocracy of the provincial ghetto.
No comments:
Post a Comment