I just want to set before you a few implications for what DK calls the Global Aristocracy, what others have called different things, over a good many years.
It used to be called The Party of Davos, or at least that was a related phenomenon to what DK refers to; things like that.
If you look at Ferguson's recent book dealing with networks, you also see some of the obvious points here.
DK's discussion of these kinds of networks is of them as strictly great wealth networks.
DK's discussion of these kinds of networks is of them as strictly great wealth networks.
I referred to Randall Collins just now, and he wrote a very lengthy scholarly book on intellectual networks a different kind of network, but with some similarities to modern plutocratic networks, The Sociology of Philosophies, some years ago.
The Credential Society is not the only important book, but that is the one the Chinese seem to have focussed on recently.
I say seem, because it seems to me that the other one has been much more important, probably for them as well.
I say seem, because it seems to me that the other one has been much more important, probably for them as well.
Intellectual networks, similarly to most aristocracies, throughout history, have overwhelmingly been intracivilizational, normally intranational, and even predominantly single urban, or limited urban network, centered, for many obvious reasons, in the past.
The European Dynastic state monarchic and aristocratic system was international. This seems to me to have been an exception in history. Corresponding to this, and opposing it, international communism was also of course both international and intercivilizational at the same time after a certain point.
Globalization, as an ideology, itself has many elements of international communism. It is certainly a longterm aggressive movement ranged against all national governments in being.
Similarly to how international communism was used and abused by radicals in various countries, globalization has been used and abused for radical nationalist purposes in strikingly similar ways, especially by both Russia, Japan, the developmental states, China.
They, intellectual networks, sometimes had international, and intercivilizational inputs, but these usually did not determine the course of these intellectual traditions themselves.
The European Dynastic state monarchic and aristocratic system was international. This seems to me to have been an exception in history. Corresponding to this, and opposing it, international communism was also of course both international and intercivilizational at the same time after a certain point.
Globalization, as an ideology, itself has many elements of international communism. It is certainly a longterm aggressive movement ranged against all national governments in being.
Similarly to how international communism was used and abused by radicals in various countries, globalization has been used and abused for radical nationalist purposes in strikingly similar ways, especially by both Russia, Japan, the developmental states, China.
They, intellectual networks, sometimes had international, and intercivilizational inputs, but these usually did not determine the course of these intellectual traditions themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment