Ep 402 Liberating Theory, Getting Started

Episode 402 of RevolutionZ moves from part one of a sequence about ideology to part two of it, from critique of an old ideology to transcend to offering a  a new one to consider and extend.  

Too often activists agree on outrage but fracture over the explanation,  strategy, root cause, and solution. The last few episodes have argued that Marxism Leninism not only doesn't preclude such divisions, but  to elicit them. So this time we begin a new sequence of episodes to propose an alternative for your consideration. 

The new series works off of Liberating Theory, a collectively written book that Michael Albert co-authored with Leslie Cagan, Noam Chomsky, Robin Hahnel, Mel King, Lydia Sargent, and Holly Sklar, built around what we took to be a pressing need for a shared conceptual toolbox that would help movements understand society well enough to collectively change it. Albert and Hahnel generated a first draft but then all seven corrected, appended, and refined our way through subsequent drafts. 

At the very outset, we each individually offered a brief statement of our advocacy of the finished book, our hopes and motives for it, including of the tension we all felt between winning immediate relief from oppression and building a future worth fighting for. From there the book digs right into method: for example, why activist theory has to be accurate but also usable in trying circumstances, why it has to confront race, gender, class, and authority without turning any one of them into the only story, and how without effective concepts movements can unintentionally reproduce the very biases and even hierarchies they oppose. That takes us into a critique of using a toolbox that elevates one or another sphere of social life as the primary key to social change, the limits of eclectic pluralism that mechanically combines two or more spheres without addressing how their intersections can alter even the defining attributes of each, and the authors attempt to build a more integrated framework that the book calls "complementary holism." 

We also introduce the book’s fictional and informal dialogues that we designed to provoke debate even as they offer some humor. A Marxist Leninist, a radical feminist, a nationalist, an anarchist, an advocate of Liberating Theory and others argue over what belongs at the center of analysis, who gets erased in coalitions, and the “stew” problem of mixing perspectives without one flavor swallowing the rest. 

The authors were all deeply involved in movement life, organizing, writing, etc. They felt a pressing need for shared vision and strategy and to achieve it they felt movements needed to share an underlying conceptual framework as well. They came together to all work on the resulting framework that they called Liberating Theory. I, Michael, am taking a liberty in presenting it to you as an episode a full forty years after we collectively settled on and signed our names to its words.

What Liberating Theory tells us about the mid eighties and more important about whether its insights live up to present needs and potentials is for you to determine. 

Transcript

Welcome And Series Setup

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hello, my name is Michael Albert, and I am the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is our four hundred and sec four hundred and second consecutive episode titled Liberating Theory Getting Started. Sounds cute, but what does that mean? Well, forty years ago, about ten years after What is to be undone was published, seven writer activists collectively co-wrote a book titled Liberating Theory. The seven authors were myself, Leslie Kagan, Noam Chomsky, Robin Hennell, Mel King, Lydia Sargent, and Holly Sklar. All seven were highly active in the new left, and all seven, after that experience, had a lot in common, including feeling that a successful left in the US needed what some of us called a shared conceptual toolbox to use in conceiving, judging, and enacting strategy and vision suitable to winning fundamental change in our future. In a sense, therefore, the book extended what is to be undone to try to offer a liberated theory, liberated from the past, that is, so this episode and five more to follow will continue that same the series as those prior ones established.

Why Liberating Theory Was Written

SPEAKER_00 1:19

Thus, first, at the front of liberating theory, the book, as what is called front matter, each co-author wrote a short comment to present our personal hopes for our collective effort. The idea of six people together writing a book on which all six signed off and in which there's no separate essays or anything like that, it's just a book as if one person wrote it but six wrote it was rather unusual. Anyway, the personal comments at the outset went like this I wrote winning limited respite from harsh oppression is an essential day to day priority. But even a brief survey of the recurrence of new forms of old oppressions, new Vietnam's, new starvation, new racism, new violence against women, new denials of rights and degradation of potentials shows that establishing a humane society is the only way to attain lasting liberation. Nonetheless, in recent years, the left has largely lost its capacity to project an uplifting conception of human possibilities and a plausible picture of how people's potentials might be fulfilled. Since I believe liberating theory can help reinvigorate our desires for and capacities to achieve a better future, I worked on and advocate its conceptual framework and hope others will do likewise. Leslie Kagan wrote, usually my writing focuses on leaflets, organizing materials, calls for action, and fundraising letters. Working on liberating theory has allowed us the opportunity to bring together a sample of the diversity of our struggles and has allowed me to think more sharply about my theory. The demands of daily political activism and organizing often mean a lack of attention to theory. It is my hope that this collective writing effort will offer social political activists a nudge in the direction of taking the task of building our theory more seriously. I believe it will be possible to bring fundamental revolutionary change to this country. Out of the everyday struggles of people throughout this nation and throughout the world, we learn new ways to name the problems and define new solutions. At the same time, our organizing and mobilizing needs a framework that gives direction to our efforts. I hope this book will be read by people active in a wide range of political, social, and economic struggles, as well as those just beginning to think about such matters. This book does not solve the problem or give us magical formulas for organizing. What I hope it does do is provoke discussion, open up debate, motivate further theoretical work, and play some role in inspiring us all. Noam Chomsky wrote, We often tend to focus our attention on today's atrocities and on efforts to mitigate them, at least I do, recognizing, however, that we are at best applying a band-aid to a cancer that will erupt elsewhere. If we are to go beyond, our work must be guided by a vision of the future that is attainable and worth achieving, and it must be part of a sustained and long term commitment by many people, ultimately, the great mass of the population who share this vision. Liberating theory is an attempt to come to grips with these problems. I hope that this unusual project will stimulate others to undertake a critical analysis of the ideas presented here and to develop them further and to join in helping to bring this dream a few important steps closer to reality. Robin Hanault wrote Functioning separately, movements to overcome racism, sexism, classism, and authoritarianism fail. Functioning together and sharing aims and methods, they can succeed. I helped write liberating theory because I believe that to go forward radically, we need to develop a new understanding of society and ourselves suited to human potentials and able to promote solidarity among people with different priorities. Now that the book exists, I will promote the idea that activists from many constituencies should debate, criticize, and improve it in the belief that this can contribute to a growing movement that seeks and finally attains a better future. Mel King wrote As an activist, politician and citizen, I constantly encounter people who say injustice exists because people are evil. Life can't be better or more fair because that's the way we are. I should be more realistic. But I know that injustice exists because of the politics of scarcity and its impact on social relations and psychologies, things we can change. I know that life and society can be much better, and that we can make it happen. Liberating theory can help us understand society, develop visionary goals, and create effective strategies. Our central aim in writing it was the need to combine agendas of different movements even while preserving the dignity and integrity of each. My hope for liberating theory is that it will galvanize anti racists, feminists, disarmament activists, anti interventionists, gay and lesbian liberationists, and everyone seeking a better world to live and grow in, helping each with their own priorities and to connect to all the others. I am a member of the Rainbow Coalition. The impetus of the Rainbow is not to reform a little here and a little there, not to, in Vincent Harding's words, have affirmative action in a dehumanized society, but to transform the defining relations of society so that life is vastly improved. Liberating theory provides a way of looking at and thinking about society consistent with my priorities and able to further them. It transcends each of its seven authors to belong to the whole left. I hope readers will respond with support and energy so we can get together and go forward now. Lydia Sargent wrote, I could begin with many lofty reasons why I contributed to liberating theory, but something has happened to them, my lofty reasons, I mean. As I drift further from the events, ideas, and goals that contributed to my own radical consciousness raising, I feel more and more impatience, despair, even boredom creeping into my political work and my life and getting a stranglehold on my lofty reasons. I am haunted by the fear that I will live out my life as a witness to the continued existence of what I hate without ever seeing the fruits of a hoped for revolution. So I contributed to liberating theory for pragmatic as well as lofty reasons. I, frankly, will do anything I can in order not to participate in a society that oppresses people around the world while ensuring that its own citizens occupy their days with a myriad of limited choices, which it refers to as democratic. Buying Pepsi or Coke, Evian Evian or Prairie, eating McDonald's or Burger King, working at Burger King or Wendy's, choosing apartheid or less apartheid, intervention or less intervention, nuclear weapons or more nuclear weapons, straight sex or no sex, profits or more profits, marriage and a career, marriage and no career. No marriage and a career, no marriage and no career, a nice boss or a less nice boss, a job being servile or a servile job, the vogue version of feminism or the cosmopolitan version. Watching Kate and Alley or Dynasty, Rambo or the Big Chill, and on and on. I can no longer rationalize the continued existence of such a society by saying that the opposition is too strong or the left is too weak, or political disagreements and sectarianism can never be overcome, or we lack a vision, solidarity, courage, commitment, analysis, skills, and knowledge. These are not reasons enough to prevent me believing in the very real possibility of a diverse, creative, liberatory society and in the necessity for all those involved in left political practice to bring their unique perspectives, personalities, and humor to the process of creating and working for such a society. I think the concepts, vision, and strategy discussed in these pages provide a framework not only for beginning, but for succeeding. And Holly Scar wrote, Between the time I finished working on liberating theory and the writing of this preface, I spent seven weeks in Nicaragua researching a new book on U.S. policy. This was my fourth trip to Nicaragua since 1980, and each time I've come away with the essential message about the power of a people reclaiming their destiny and rebuilding their country from the ground up. Sandinismo is a liberating theory and practice which integrates Marxism, feminism, spirituality, and cultural liberation, representing a new wisdom etched in Nicaraguan history, but with lessons from and for liberation movements around the world. We have yet to create our own Sandinismo, our US identity, our liberating program, our popular power. Liberating Theory is meant to help close the gaps in our movement and serve as a guide for a movement deserving and capable of taking power and creating a new democracy. Liberating theory rejects dogmas and monotony. It was and is a collective venture, a mutual education. We did not take years in an effort to achieve perfect consensus or perfect terminology. Our goal was to achieve a new and valuable synthesis of ideas and concepts to serve as a catalyst for future endeavors. I think we succeeded in that, and I look forward to new stages of the project, stages molded by additional people and expanding progress perspectives. Then

How The Collective Book Took Shape

SPEAKER_00 11:38

followed the book's introduction, like this. In the summer of nineteen eighty four, Southend Press asked a number of political activists to plan a collectively authored book which would analyze conditions in the United States today, project a shared vision of our society as we would like it to be, and propose a strategy for bringing about this new society. Over twenty activist writers from diverse backgrounds agreed to collaborate in this unique effort. Four participants were chosen by the group to be core writers, responsible for initiating and revising various drafts of the manuscript. In succeeding months, the core writers interviewed the other participants and had events gone according to plan, the next step would have been to incorporate insights from those interviews into a first draft, which would then have been criticized by all participants as if it had been their own work. The core group would next have incorporated suggestions in a new draft and submitted that for further revision. On a few occasions, the full collective would have gathered to discuss content and distribution, and by the winter of nineteen eighty five, nineteen eighty six we would have published the book. Instead, due to a combination of factors, work stalled shortly after the interviewing ended. The break in the project made us realize that as prospective authors of a political analysis that could unite many constituencies, we first had to agree on a shared conceptual framework for bringing unity out of diversity. But it was clear from our interviews that no one of the many conceptual approaches held by our authors could alone provide guidance. What features define our society? How do they interrelate? These and related questions had to be addressed before we could do more detailed analyses and project goals and strategies. We decided to divide the project into two stages. The first would provide an effective conceptual framework to employ and the second, where we would apply the new insights. To produce Liberating Theory, our shared framework, the original group of core writers was enlarged to include all the authors of the present volume Michael Albert, Leslie Kagan, Noam Chomsky, Robin Hannel, Mo King, Lydia Sargent, and Holly Sklar. The first draft was written by Albert and Hinnell, and then put through intensive rewrites by the other authors. Not all of us agree with every word, and certainly we would each have had different emphases had we written alone. But whatever our differences, we all agree that the framework presented here is a powerful conceptual starting place for understanding modern societies, developing liberated visions, and formulating strategies to help us make those visions real. With liberating theory as a foundation, we have high hopes that the product of subsequent efforts will be truly groundbreaking. We fully expect concepts presented here to evolve and new ideas to emerge as the ongoing project unfolds. Chapter one of Liberating Theory presents a methodological overview of our perspective. Chapters two through five refine and enrich familiar concepts for understanding economic, political, community, and kinship relations. Chapter six develops new concepts for understanding how these four types of relations influence one another in real societies, and chapter seven addresses questions of historical change. Finally, chapters eight and nine explain how to apply liberating theory's conceptual framework to envisioning a liberated society and developing an effective strategy for reaching it. In a set of appendices, we have also included imaginary dialogues, contrasting our perspective to others currently more prevalent on the left. There is one dialogue for each chapter, and each dialogue presupposes that the participants have just become familiar with the chapter it relates to. As hypothetical exchanges, the dialogues remind us that ideas are held by people and that concepts for movements must be thrashed out in context of real needs. But including the dialogues was the most contested decision we had to make, while four of us thought of the dialogues as provocative concluding sections for each chapter Albert, Chomsky, Hanell, and Sargent. The other three, Kagan, King and Sklar, found them to be at best distracting and at worst caricatures. Favoring participatory democracy, we decided to include them as appendices at the end of the whole volume to allow readers to make their own decision about whether and or when to read them. I interject for purposes of the episodes based on the chapters, I have taken the liberty of moving the dialogues back to conclude each associated chapter. They are quite feisty, as I read them over on the way to that decision, I found them very amusing, often funny, and taken in the right spirit properly provocative. Also indicative of the times, then, which again was forty years ago, literally nineteen eighty six. The introduction continued. Liberating theory emphasizes methods not final answers. It does not analyze specific events, but presents ways of understanding past and present events as well as possible futures. It does not develop a particular strategy, but presents methods for creating diverse strategies suited to complex contexts. There

Method And What Activist Theory Must Do

SPEAKER_00 17:23

then followed the first chapter, which was titled Method, Motivation and Social Theory. I should perhaps interject. Sometimes these chapters get a little bit uh difficult. I don't know whether difficult is the right word, certainly not like expositions of reports on events and uh current goings-ons. That's because they have to be a bit abstract, uh a bit broader, covering uh an entire possibility set, the entire uh framework of of having a good conceptual toolbox. The chapter continues. Political activists need concepts suited to accurately analyzing society and history. But accuracy is not all that matters. In addition, to help popular movements, clear and concise concepts need to be applicable by activists operating in everyday situations, not just by armchair radicals with endless time for deciphering arcane rhetoric. Moreover, social theory must help prevent the baggage of history from subverting attempts to establish liberating new relations. To be liberatory, concepts need to counter tendencies to ignore, devalue, or oversimplify important social dynamics such as race, sex, class, or authority. This point cannot be emphasized enough. Activist theory must help its advocates overcome their own oppressive socializations. It will not do for our theories to aggravate or even impose new biases. Certainly social theories cannot help us make testable precisions in the manner of physics or chemistry. Social predictions cannot approach the precision of a formula. If we mix chemicals A and B in environment X after a said time elapses, such and such amount of C will result. But nonetheless, we can use powerful social theory to explain relationships, to envision possibilities, and delineate trends that may impede or promote those possibilities, and to make probabilistic predictions about likely outcomes of current activities, all in ways that broaden our perspectives and counter our biases. These are our goals for liberating theory. When Marxists conceptualize society, a particular picture of social and historical possibilities emerges. Is the Marxist view comprehensive enough to meet activists' needs? Does it counter or aggravate socialized biases? What about other theories such as feminism, nationalism, anarchism, populism, or what we might call ecologism? Advocates of different schools of thought rarely claim to already have all the answers we need about history, contemporary societies, or alternative visions. They often do claim, however, to have conceptual frameworks sufficient for developing those answers now and in the future. Our view is different. While these theories teach many important truths, they each also bias our analyses by obscuring some important dynamics and unduly exaggerating others. We feel that not only do we need new answers about our society, but also new concepts to help us find those answers. Let's look at this problem more closely. At the extreme, some political activists claim that one particular domination precipitates all really important oppressions. Whether Marxist, anarchist, nationalist, or feminist, these ideal types argue that important social relations can all be reduced to the economy, state, culture, or gender. Their extreme monist, we might call it, approaches emphasize reductionist foundations. Each idealized monist theory targets different domination relations as the motor force of history. Not surprisingly, as they each find a different essential tension, their respective proponents criticize one another harshly. The idealized Marxist looks first to economic and class relations to explain not only economic, but also sexual, racial, political, and all other types of domination. Likewise, the idealized feminist looks primarily to gender. The idealized nationalist looks. To culture and the idealized anarchists to the state. Of course, only a few activists actually assert that everything, everywhere, is always economy based, state-based, gender based, or culture based, and nothing more. The ideal types are caricatures, but most adherents of each perspective do claim that their particular concepts of structure and power are at least the central determinants of oppression and social change. For example, some people adopt a label like feminist simply to show their commitment to overcoming a particular form of oppression without necessarily accepting only one theoretical paradigm as valid. They may mean to convey, for example, that they see the roots of patriarchy as having powerful influences on all sides of life, while they still acknowledge that other critical dynamics might also be at work. But many other activists adopt ism labels to make the self-conscious theoretical claim that a particular sphere of society deserves priority attention because it incorporates the driving forces which determine historical possibilities in every sphere of society. As Schulamith Firestone put it in the Dialectics of Sex, a feminist of this sort might quote, seek the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all historic events in the dialectic of sex, the division of society into two distinct biological classes for procreative reproduction, and the struggles of those classes with one another, in the changes in the modes of marriage, reproduction and childcare, in the connected development of other physically differentiated classes and castes, and in the first division of labor based on sex, which developed into the economic cultural class system. The monus reductionist program always has roughly the same structure. A body of experience or data is dissected into components, some of which are said to have features that disproportionately determine the properties of the whole they together compose. The whole is then analyzed primarily in terms of those favored parts, on the grounds that those parts exist in and of themselves, operate largely according to their own laws, and powerfully influence the whole by processes immune to major alteration by operations of other parts of the whole. Though monist analysts distinguish themselves by choosing different defining features of society and history, their basic method is the same. I think I'm going to repeat that paragraph. It was a lot in one in one place. The monist reductionist program always has roughly the same structure. A body of experience or data is dissected into components, some of which are said to have features that disproportionately determine the properties of the whole they together composed. The whole, in our case we're talking about the whole as society, is then analyzed primarily in terms of those favored parts, on the grounds that those parts exist in and of themselves, operate largely according to their own laws, and powerfully influence the whole by processes immune to major alteration by operations of other parts of the system. Though monist analysts distinguish themselves by choosing different defining features of society and history, their basic method is the same. No matter how carefully they proceed, all the different reductions of the same complex phenomena to different root causes cannot be correct. Representatives of different perspectives naturally ablely criticize one another. In the ensuing chaos, many disgruntled leftists opt for eclectic pluralism, employing the concepts of more than one framework, much as the anarchist Bakunin called himself a Marxist in economics, and as many Marxist economists now call themselves feminists regarding gender. I interject. Nowadays, in twenty twenty six, for example, an activist might refer to racialized capitalism among other concatenations. And the chapter continues.

Why Pluralism Still Falls Short

SPEAKER_00 26:39

Countering monism, pluralist approaches claim we must use more than one set of intellectual tools because social causes cannot be reduced to a single class of determining relations. Many activists simultaneously claim to be Marxist and feminist, anarchist and nationalist, or feminist and anarchist, because they rightly recognize the complexity of their environment and see merit in more than one analytic orientation. Whether a pluralist analysis succeeds obviously depends upon the analyst's skill in choosing the right tools to scrutinize changing circumstances. Yet pluralism dictates that to analyze the economy you should use Marxist categories, while to analyze the for family, you should use feminist categories, and even that advice is inadequate. Monist approaches fail whenever we need to recognize more than one set of causal factors. For example, black and white and male and female workers don't all have the same interests and mindsets simply because they all belong to the same economic class. Oversimplifying causal factors to include only class relations can ignore racial and sexual dynamics that cause women and blacks, among others, to endure different oppressions, not only when paychecks and pink slips are dispersed, but day in and day out because of the racist and sexist definitions of their economic tasks. Class concepts cannot alone adequately explain factory life, and so even to understand the economy, much less the rest of society, we must go beyond Marxism. Similarly, however, each monist approach exaggerates the influence of its favored sphere, underestimates the influence of other spheres, and largely ignores the crucial fact that every sphere is itself critically influenced by other sources of social definition. Pluralist approaches try to escape these distortions by adopting more than one perspective. But since events are often so multifaceted that only a comprehensive theory can reveal their true character, this too often fails. Imagine looking at a country scene using, in turn, blue, red, and green filters. Though you would see much, you would also have great difficulty discerning features depending upon how colors mix. Similarly, a Marxist feminist will see traditional economic exploitation and also patriarchal violence against women, but miss many of the more subtle ways that gender relations redefine class definitions or that economic dynamics redefine family norms. Because they fail to account for multifaceted defining influences, Marxist categories insufficiently explain even the economy, feminist categories insufficiently explain even gender, nationalist categories insufficiently explain even culture, and anarchist categories insufficiently explain even the state. All these focuses are certainly necessary, but to use them optimally, we need to develop a new orientation that allows us to embody refined versions of each primary framework as a new whole.

Complementary Holism And Interconnected Society

SPEAKER_00 30:07

We tentatively call this new orientation complementary holism. I interject. That was not a wonderful choice of a name, I think it turned out historically. I have to admit it was my responsibility, and I think it probably turned off various possible adherents of the views. At any rate, we tentatively call this new orientation complementary holism. It is rooted in two modern scientific principles holism and complementarity. Holism informs us that reality's many parts act together to form an entwined whole, and in the words of physicist David Bohm in his book wholeness in the implicate order, all phenomena are quote to be understood not as independently and permanently existent, but rather as products that have been formed in the whole flowing movement and that will ultimately dissolve back into that movement. Of course, Bohm doesn't mean to imply that a useful understanding of an electron in a lab of a physicist in New York City can't be had unless we also explain the texture of wood in a staircase in the Kremlin. The influences of the latter will be too slight to care about. But he does mean to highlight that since all phenomena influence all other phenomena, we should always be careful about how we abstract any particular aspect of our surroundings from the whole. Extracting the economy from the rest of society, for example, will often be ill advised. Here the interactions are too important to exclude any from our focus. Since in practice it is not so easy to keep this rather obvious guideline in mind, choosing concepts that continually highlight its importance can help. Complementarity, in the sense that we use it, means that the parts which compose wholes interrelate to help define one another, even though each appears often to have an independent and even contrary existence. Our definition, as further developed below, is a significantly altered form of the general complementarity principle developed by scientist Niels Bohr and other members of what is called the Copenhagen School, who felt the more precise quantum physics definition of complementarity was generalizable to various social and historical phenomena. Just as Marx and Langles played strict attention to state of the art science in their time, we should keep up with contemporary developments. Ironically, however, though most contemporary Marxists pride themselves on being scientific, few bother to notice the state of the art science has changed dramatically in the last hundred years. While avoiding simplistic mimicry and misapplication of scientific principles, we should update our methods by seriously examining contemporary science for new ideas relevant to our theoretical efforts. Modern quantum physics, for example, teaches that reality is not a collection of separate entities, but a vast and intricate, unbroken whole. Ilya Prigergine comments in his book From Being to Becoming, quote, the new paradigms of science may be expected to develop to develop into the new science of connectedness, which means the recognition of unity and diversity. I interject. I apologize again for the name complementary holism, which may well have substantially reduced prospects for the offered liberating theory to cap on, to catch on. We tried for but did not come up with better. Likewise, I'm not sure that the science asides in this first chapter will help all readers to understand what's being proposed. But at the time we thought they would, so I will continue to present the chapter as it was indeed collectively written. The chapter continued When thinking about phenomena, we inevitably conceptually abstract parts from the whole in which they reside. But they then exist as separate entities only in our perceptions. There are no isolated electrons, for example, only fields of force continually ebbiting and flowing in a seamless web of activity which manifests events that we choose to call electrons because it suits our analytical purposes. For the physicist, each electron quark or whatever is a process and a network. As a process it has a developmental trajectory, extending through time. As a network, it is part of an interactive pattern stretching throughout all space. Every part embodies and is subsumed in a larger whole. Similarly, relativity theorists explain that our image of time as a continually expressing river is also a human construct. In reality, time no more flows than does space. The two are complementary aspects of a single whole, even as we perceive them to be separate. In both spatial and temporal dimensions there exist only unity and diversity, diversity and unity. Using similar logic I interject, that's arguably a bit of a stretch. The chapter continues. Using similar logic, contrary to most radical formulations, we argue that it is wrong to call a society capitalist or patriarchal or racist or dictatorial, and think with a single descriptor one has revealed the essence of the society in question. Many readers might be thinking, quote, that's obvious, who could disagree? Yet a review of radical literature shows that the answer is at least in practice a great many people. In publication after publication, a single sphere of society is addressed or even labeled, and claims are then made to the effect that not only has this particular sphere of society been fully understood, which it hasn't, but that the fundamental dynamics of the overall society have been properly illuminated. Writing a book on economics or culture is fine. We cannot always address everything. Examining single spheres in isolation with monist theories and claiming comprehensive knowledge is not fine. We needn't abstract poorly. Adrian Rich's eloquent definition of patriarchy provides an example of monistic overgeneralization. Patriarchy is the power of the fathers, a familial, social, ideological political system, in which men, by force, direct pressure, or through ritual, tradition, law, and language, customs, etiquette, education, and the division of labor, determine what part women shall or shall not play, and in which the female is everywhere subsumed under the male. Under patriarchy I may live in perda or drive a truck, I may serve my husband his early morning coffee within the clay walls of a Berber village or march in an academic procession. Whatever my status or situation, my derived economic class or my sexual preference, I lived under the power of the fathers, and I have access only to so much of privilege or influence as the patriarchy is willing to accede to me, and only for so long as I will pay the price for male approval. From this starting point, if we are not very careful, it is all too easy to lose track of the defining influence economic, political, and cultural forms can have on gender relations, and to lose track of the different experiences of different women, of the different possibilities they face, and so on. Yet often we do need to temporarily escape the complexities of connectedness, and at these times we take as our focus not the whole interconnected society, but a particular type of abstract economy, kinship system, cultural process, or governing form. We write a treatise on the capitalist economy, or parliamentary democracy, just as a physicist might write one on the electron. Yet in doing so we must remember that our conclusions are suspect, for as with the electron and its field, the commun the economy, community, state, and kinship spheres are always complementary facets of a single unbroken natural and social order. Of course we are not saying that a theory of the electron is suspect if it doesn't include reflections on the crusades, just that it is suspect if it doesn't include reflections on photons or even gravitation. And likewise, we are not saying a theory of the capitalist firm is suspect if it does not include reflections on the anthropology of ancient matriarchal societies. But it had better include reflections on contemporary gender, community, and political relations, since these always intertwine with and help define economic forms. To take the economic example further, the assumption that only classes are important economic actors and that classes are wholly defined by economic relationships common to different modes of production would be valid only if it were justifiable to abstract from the fact that members of classes are also members of different sexes, cultural communities, and political structures. That is, racial, gender, political, and other dynamics which play upon economic relations would have to be marginal for the theory to always do a good job. Yet all too often such abstractions are flawed, as when many Marxists assume the lack of relevance of gender in assessing production relations or when many feminists ignore race when assessing kinship forms. In short, since society is itself holistic, it is essential that we develop an intellectual framework specifically contoured to understanding an interconnected reality. We should expect interdependence and only introduce simplifying assumptions that deny the importance of interconnections when such assumptions are carefully justified. Since existing theories fail to adequately follow this approach, we cannot begin our efforts by assuming Marxism, feminism, nationalism, anarchism, or even some combination of these will be valid. Contemporary science teaches us to examine reality in unusual ways. Embarking upon our effort to create a new conceptual framework for political analysis, we should heed its lessons. Unlike monus, we must incorporate one more than one angle of approach. Unlike pluralists, we must integrate our diverse angles of approach and allow each to refine the others within a comprehensive framework which allows important truths to emerge.

Dissipative Systems And Revolutionary Change

SPEAKER_00 41:47

Thermodynamics, which is concerned primarily with energy relations, is another physical science with methodological insights of use to social theorists. Here, Ilya Prigagine's studies have led to a new theory of change of what he calls, quote, dissipative systems. For Prigagine, most dissipative systems continually undergo reproductive transformations. Continual fluxes and dissipative systems embody a perpetual flow of energy and matter which leave the dissipative systems largely unchanged over time. Though everything flows, the result of this turmoil is only evolutionary change fluctuating around a stable pattern of development, which defines the character of the whole dynamic system. People, for example, undergo countless flows of energy, material and information with the surrounding environment. Yet each morning we awake with our identity secure. Viewed one way, we are wildly out of equilibrium, our very cells regularly dying off and being replaced. Yet viewed another way, we are here today, tomorrow and the day after, relatively unchanged. Sometimes, however, fluctuations in dissipative systems invoke fundamental transformations in their defining characteristics. In these revolutionary cases, instead of all changes away from the basic defining pattern being reined in, pressures from within and without together push the system so far from its defining trajectory that old identities shatter. Pergogene applies his conceptualization universally to the smallest physical systems, to individuals and social groups, to societies and whole ecologies, and to cosmic systems. In biological and social evolution, for example, change occur within limits and generally preserve the host systems defining character. In biological and social revolution, however, changes burst all restraints so the whole host system ceases to exist in its old form and is replaced instead by a new system with new defining features and altered evolutionary and revolutionary potentials. Though it would be simple minded to extrapolate too freely from Prigagine's studies, his lessons can provide insights relevant to our own understanding of social systems. If we view all complex structures as dissipative systems following Prigagine, then we can evolve an image of social structures existing within, overlapping and encompassing one another, all influencing and even flowing through one another. On occasion, the ebb and flow of one sphere becomes so pronounced owing to its own internal motions and or to growing pressures from without, that it undergoes a profound change and in turn sometimes causes other systems to change as well. Seeing societies and even parts of societies like their kinship spheres or economies as dissipative systems should prove enlightening in coming chapters. Moreover, although the specific features of revolutionary processes differ depending on the type of dissipative system under discussion, the general dynamic is always present. Yet if nature is an unbroken whole with parts we can only examine in light of how they mutually interpenetrate and define one another, what does it mean to discuss a system separate from the rest of nature? We don't hesitate to speak of chemical compounds, molecules, biological organs, rocks, mountains, products, people, economies and societies as separate things. In each case, however, we mentally extricate a conceptual piece from the whole tapestry of society and nature, where no such extrication is entirely accurate. We do this, of course, because our mental abstraction helps us think about that part, albeit a little bit incorrectly, in a more manageable way. If every time we wanted to talk about a chair, car or friend, we had to simultaneously discuss the whole rest of our society and even of the universe, obviously we would never say or think anything. At the other end of the axis, however, as we have already argued, it is also wrong to forget that a tapestry of interconnections does exist, so that whenever we do speak of parts by themselves, we do so only in approximate ways. We must always check to see if the interconnections we ignore can indeed be ignored at small cost. To initiate our theoretical journeys with reductionist assumptions that unchanging atoms of influence will be found at the foundation of all social and historical processes would be a disastrously narrowing step. A more encompassing attitude informed by a desire to carefully search out justifiable abstractions is better suited to activist needs. When we extract a part from a larger whole and examine it, we must arrange remain aware that an encompassing whole defines the aspect we analyze. Indeed for Purgagine, precisely the relationship of the part to the whole, the way its aspects interrelate and flow through that whole and vice versa, allows the part to attain sufficient coherence for us to examine it separately. If we think of ourselves again, it is the way energy and materials flow from our environment through us and back, allowing us to continually reproduce our component features that allows us to maintain our current definition as separate people. Likewise, thinking of an economy, it is the particular ways goods, services, ideas and relations flow through the economy, from it to the rest of society and back that allows the sphere to maintain its coherence. Without interconnection and continual flux, neither people nor economies could persist as discernible systems with defining patterns of development to be maintained during normal times and transformed during revolutionary times. In essence it is a special type of ongoing change that promotes ongoing continuity. With dissipative systems parts are always subsumed under still larger holes and any boundaries we recognize must be understood as abstractions. It follows that when we try to understand any particular system's evolutionary and revolutionary tendencies, we should look not only at its internal attributes but also to those affecting it from outside. Indeed, the division between within and without is really only something that we impose by our particular conceptual labeling of the system. This lesson is important when talking about such societal subsystems as the economy, polity, community and kinship sphere and can go a long way toward preventing monus misconceptualizations. For example, this recognition runs counter to the idea of employing exclusively an internal contradictions view as the basis of a methodology of change, precisely because the concept internal is itself an arbitrary one, dependent upon how we view society, history or whatever subject matter we are addressing. For by our conceptualizing it is we who define the boundaries between things determining what is internal and external to each. Again, we can and certainly should do this for many purposes, but not always, and always with great care.

The Four Spheres And Center Boundary

SPEAKER_00 50:03

So what are the fundamentals of this new theory we call complementary holism Many different kinds of domination characterize human history. Imperialist powers have dominated other peoples politically, culturally and economically. Within particular nations men have dominated women ruling classes have dominated other classes. Whites have dominated people of color members of one religion have dominated members of another and so on. Moreover, each of these different kinds of domination has existed in a variety of forms. Each has had pervasive effects on the quality of people's lives and each has influenced the whole structure of societies in which they have appeared. Genocide, colonialism, slavery, racism and religious oppression have each had their own particular dynamics and consequences rape, psychological abuse, objectification, and the exclusion of women from participation in political, cultural or economic activity outside the family, as well as discrimination against women when they are able to participate in quote public life, present a multitude of different forms of gender oppression. The exploitation of peasants by landlords, workers by capitalists and workers by planning bureaucracies and managers are all forms of class oppression, each different from the others. Similarly, execution, imprisonment, banning of political activity and unjust access to public participation are all forms of state oppression, any of which can be utilized by monarchies, dictatorships, representative democracies or even participatory democracies. Our pains have come in many shapes and sizes, each with their own characteristic signatures, and each with influences extending far beyond their immediate spheres. Each of these types of domination has elicited a monus theory, feminism, nationalism, anarchism, Marxism, which we have rejected as inadequate whether taken separately or in pluralist combination. In coming chapters we outline alternative concepts that start from the premise that each domination generates highly interconnected but irreducible social forces. We also build a series of subtories that make no a priori assumptions about any hierarchy of different forms of domination, a view we will support in more detail later. Only empirical investigation of a particular society at a particular time can verify the existence or non existence of a hierarchy of dominations in that particular case. And often, rather than a hierarchy of oppressions, there will be a holistic interweaving of oppressions. As a complex dissipative system, any society usually evolves along a relatively stable pattern of steady evolutionary change. People engage in diverse types of social activity which leads to the creation of systems and institutions which generate social groups with different social responsibilities and different access to status, power and means of attaining well being. Occasionally these component structures and even society as a whole undergo revolutionary transformation. Using vague domination terminology, we can say that any society has a well defined complex of social relationships determining its modes of domination and the division of its citizenry into groups of dominators and dominated. When a society merely evolves these patterns reproduce without major change but when a revolution occurs they transform. We can conceive of society as two basic networks a human center composed of citizens, their consciousnesses, personalities, needs and skills, and a surrounding institutional boundary composed of society's institutions and their role structures. These two networks the human and the institutional us and the system together comprise the larger society which in turn encompasses both. The institutions are certainly created by the actions and expectations of the human population. Yet the consciousnesses and personalities of the people are themselves molded by the institutional structures people continually confront. The psychological dynamics that equilibrate our personalities and society's boundary vary, to be sure, but the basic relations are similar. By our activities we not only fulfill immediate needs, but also develop personality traits and future preferences. When we work in a certain type of job or mother or father children, or go to church, temple or mosque, or participate in politics, we not only influence others but also create ourselves to fit. When we contour activities to fulfill certain role requirements, we naturally acquire certain related traits and needs. Moreover, as we have a disposition to think well of ourselves, most often we then also contour our attitudes to rationalize our efforts so they appear logical, good or at least necessary. It follows that if institutions offer only a limited number of roles through which we may gain access to means of survival and fulfillment, most of us will naturally and inexorably mold ourselves to fit the requirements of those roles. If we do otherwise we either become permanent misfits or we seek to change our institutional context. So most often most people develop acceptable self images by accommodating their values to the logic of their activities, which are in turn structured by society's institutional boundary. And this means that we regularly bring our mindsets into accord with that boundary. Most times therefore powerful pressures push people to seek only what society is prepared to bestow upon them. At the same time institutions obviously also reflect the personality and ideas we bring to their design and construction. We continually recreate our society's institutions so that of course they accord with our values, needs and desires. In sum both society's boundary and its center create and are created by the other. Each is the subject and object of their entwined history. The two codefine one another the division between them is imposed and porous. If we extend center and boundary in time and space they each expand through their edges to embody one another Society's center and boundary are complementary aspects of a single unbroken whole. Both center and boundary are complex dissipative systems. Whatever society's defining features may be, they will necessarily pervade both society center and boundary. They will persist through evolutionary changes since such changes necessarily involve limited adaptations of both center and boundary. Revolution however will alter these defining features since we know that historically people universally engage in certain social activities, which in turn involve social relations contouring daily life and governing group interactions, as our next conceptual step it makes sense to subdivide society along lines highlighting these activities social relations and social groups. In the next four chapters we will conceptualize economic, political kinship and community spheres showing how each may be usefully characterized by a predominant activity and particular defining social relations and group structures, each entwined with the others in a complementary wholeless fashion. We will not assume at the outset any particular hierarchy of the influences stemming from these fears, but will instead address such interrelations as we come upon them in our theorizing. After discussing each sphere largely in isolation from the others in these early chapters, later we will attain a higher level of accuracy by confining our new conceptualizations into an encompassing framework for thinking about societies and history.

Why The Dialogues Exist

SPEAKER_00 58:57

So ended the first chapter of liberating theory for those who would like a text version, and I know if I had heard this just over a podcast, I would, it's hard to follow, I hope one will appear shortly on Zenet, which hosts Revolution Z, and then curated, perhaps also republished on some other sites as well. The book had in addition to the text a number of fictional dialogues, each an imaginary stylized version of the kind of discussion that could conceivably occur when those who hold different political perspectives react to the associated chapter of liberating theory. The dialogues were designed to provoke and enliven political debate and a little humor too. The participants included Koho, a complimentary holist with roots in civil rights and sixties anti war movements. I interject remember this is written in nineteen eighty four Moreland a Marxist Leninist professor active in numerous campus organizations over the years I interject how many Marxist Leninist professors are active in numerous campus organizations? That would be interesting The listing continues Nat or Nate nationalist Nat a nationalist with roots in sixties black power movements involved in community organizing and anti apartheid work. CC, a council communist working as a machinist and organizing around workplace democracy. Rad Fem, a radical feminist who works at an abortion clinic and who is active in movements against violence against women and in the gay and lesbanian community. I interject at the time this book was written trans was not a an area of concern, an area of activity, an area of decision making that was prominently considered or actually pretty much considered at all among radical perspectives and so that's when this was written the listing continues. Sophie a socialist feminist active in the sixties civil rights movement and working as a freelance photographer in the Rainbow Coalition Neopop, once a Marxist but later a populist working on a radical journal Anna an anarchist who works on a radio station and is active in anti intervention and disarmament organizing Plury, a union organizer active in the Latino community and an exponent of a pluralist ideology. And finally CI, a Marxist theorist whose current cynicism has become debilitating. So sin is CYN cynicism. So the first dialogue to accompany the first chapter begins.

The Debate Begins Across Ideologies

SPEAKER_00 1:01:57

Maybe I should preface this a bit so I interject you can see there's a lot of characters and as I read these dialogues to you I am not going to be able to manifest the vocal intonations of each character. But hopefully the substance that the characters express will be indicative of their backgrounds and their commitments. So we continue with the dialogue it begins Coho, the complimentary wholeist says because they fail to account for multifaceted defining influences, Marxist categories insufficiently explain not only community, kinship and political realities, but the economy as well. Feminist categories insufficiently explain not only economic, community and political realities, but also gender. Nationalist categories insufficiently explain not only kinship, economic and political realities, but community as well. And anarchist categories insufficiently explain not only kinship, economic and community categories, but the state as well We need a new synthesis Morlin, the Marxist Leninist replies immediately as usual Are you through Coho? Because I have a great deal to say about your very flawed presentation. He shifts to get comfortable now Nate, the nationalist trying to stave off an extended rehash of Marxist economics interrupts hold it right there. I thought we agreed to have these conversations in a friendly constructive spirit. Morlin responds, trying to regain control I am being friendly and constructive. Now while Coho states Ceci, the Council communist clarifies for those not familiar with Morland's politics his idea of constructive is to try to argue us back to the Orthodox fold. Nate says let him try Rad Fem The radical feminist squaring off adds that's why I'm sitting near the exit Sophie the socialist feminist always hopeful adds surely he's softened since the last time we were together nineteen seventy two, wasn't it? Neopop, the populist efficiency expert adds listen, I'm indispensable at my job, which I'd like to get back to before nineteen ninety. So if we could speed things up, perhaps I should act as chair Anna, the anarchist, sensing developing hierarchies, says I don't think that will be necessary, Neop. Plury, the union organizer, conciliatory as usual, says let's not be defensive. Everyone has something to contribute, something important to say. I am expecting to learn a great deal that will help in my organizing. Marlin, skillfully refocusing the debate, adds I agree with Plury that you all have a great deal to learn. Now Coho, you state that since no theory can be totally comprehensive, we must focus in on critical elements. Then you proceed to focus out. You've got more categories than a tax form. My approach allows us to look at other oppressions and to concentrate on economic forces which are the only elements that can bring about major change. Anna, speaking over the ensuing angry comments says I am glad, and I mean this sincerely, that you recognize other oppressions besides economic ones. That wasn't the case in 1972. But I think what Koho has in mind is that we all begin to see the limits of our particular monist and pluralist theories. I certainly see the limits of yours, Marlin. You ignore the fact that in all kinds of current societies, even where Lenin Rules, the economy doesn't dominate, but is dominated by the state. You miss that the will to dominate and the countering will to collectivity are what make change happen. Lust for power, not lust for money. Rad Fem, about ready to move out the door, says Anna, your analysis stems from reading history written by men. Capitalist society, dominant states? My approach reflects the fact that we live in a patriarchal society that happens to have private property and a constitutional democracy. Its money grabbing authoritarianism derives from more basic levels. Who owns property or governs is determined, not determinant. Patriarchy creates political and economic oppressions. Gender must be our organizing focus. Kinship or priority lens. Moreland. But address the question, Radfem, Koho has challenged our monist theories. And believe me, yours seems the most monist of all. I am extremely sensitive to sexist oppression. But to say that, Radfem interrupts, don't even think of debating me on your qualifications around sexism. As for Koho's analysis, I'm frankly suspicious. To use an analogy, Sophie interrupts, not physics again. Radfem, if you put a lot of vegetables in a stew, the one with the strongest flavor will dominate. The same is true when you combine all these perspectives. The one with the quote weight of history is going to dominate. Nat, spotting an alley against Ma Morlin. And if you put us all meat, vegetables, and potatoes, in the stew pot together, Radfem, the first thing you white folks will pick out is the beefy Marxist economics, which you will then swallow hook, line, and sinker. Coho, though I am intrigued by the stew analogy, Radfem's approach prevents us from noticing the influence of different groups of vegetables. What happens when everyone picks out the white potatoes and leaves the black eyed peas to burn at the bottom? Nate, I was getting to that. Pluri Learning from everybody and eager to put it all together says I find all the vegetables in the stew delightfully edible, and as I find all your approaches useful depending upon the circumstances. To create my own analogy, if I'm building a new society, I reach into my theoretical toolbox for a hammer for hammering, a screwdriver for Sophie, interrupting before the analogies get out of hand, says While you're each praising or defending your own approaches, you are ignoring one of Kofi's main points about monism. Marxism doesn't even fully understand its own priority focus, the economy. Why? Because the theory itself is sex blind, unable to understand how gender oppression affects the economy. And radical feminism doesn't fully understand the family and sexuality because it cannot incorporate economic influences on kinship arrangements. I have combined the two into a composite theory which embodies both class and gender concepts. Nate, what about me? Am I still burning at the bottom of the pot? Anna, enjoying the stew approach, responds, none of you has addressed the primary question. Who decides what goes in the stew? C C not who makes the stew? Morlin. Who owns the stew? Sophie. As they were all getting carried away adds, What sex is the stew maker? The ingredients? Koho responds over I can't help not laughing, I'm sorry. Koho responds over continuing rapid fire comments. This is precisely why I asked you all here after all these years. We have to try to get out of this endless reiteration of the preponderance of our own approaches. Let me summarize the existing situation. First, Morlin, you want us to hold to Marxist concepts because, Morlin interrupts, pleased to be first. Because why throw out the most important and thorough analysis of the capitalist epoch? It's strong and useful. It locates struggle with the working class, but has the potential to also understand the oppression of women and minorities, in that context, of course. Coho counters. But do you really think that society and history are only about wages, employment levels, profit rates, and class struggle? And Radfem, you argue that Marxist concepts, Radfem shrugs and admits, they drive me nuts. Marxists talk only of economic differences, class oppression. They even see the family just as a means of reproducing the labor force. They try to attract women into the fold by organizing economic campaigns around wages for housework as the primary feminist concern because it gets to what they call the material root of things. What a joke. Marxists can't understand sexism's origins, tenacity, or even its economic effects. Coho, countering firmly, adds, but would your concepts push you to look at other oppressions? Do they help you understand differences between women who define themselves as working class, as minorities, as anarchists? And Nate, you argue that Marxism, Nate interrupts, ignores and subsumes race and nationality. A Marxist society has no respect for cultural or religious heritage. How we define ourselves, how we celebrate, play, and pray, determines the base on which social structures are built. And while I agree with Radfim about Marxism, I think, quite frankly, that sexism is just a white cultural phenomenon, derivative and not causal. Koho, countering briskly, adds, but your analysis could be applied against you. If we are defined by who we are, doesn't defining yourself primarily as black limit your potential to understand classism or sexism or authoritarianism, even as it usefully highlights racism? And Anna, you argue that Anna interrupts. I argue that sexism, racism, and classism are just three among many forms of authoritarian hierarchies. Their constructs don't allow them to see more than one or two forms of dominance relation. Mine encompasses all dominations. Koho responds, but would you in turn be inclined to explore the more subtle and blatant dimensions of racism and sexism or only those analogous to political hierarchies? And C you would like to see a theory that inter C interrupts. While I understand Radfem's and Nate's concerns, I don't think their oppressions are at the root of things. It is the economy and the state together that create the social constructs of sexism and racism. Koho jumps in as Nate and Radfem rise from their seats and Plury, I take it that you would use concepts pragmatically from the theory pie. Plury, yes, I would take Nate's Radfem's Marlin's and Anna's analyses and use them each as needed. Sophie reacts, but how do you know what's needed and when? What if they interact in a way that separate usage doesn't discern? I have combined Marxist economic analyses and feminist categories into a broader theory. Nate, losing patience, says Once again, where do you put racism in this picture? Sophie, the same place you put sexism, Nate, cultures are derivative, not causal. Morlin, and we're back where we started at an impasse. Koho, I don't think so. I don't see why you can't collectively move forward. You each realize the weaknesses of each other's monist approaches, but not of your own. You each suspect the combinations of approaches will subsume your own. You feel solidarity with those whose concerns are being mutually ignored. Yet you each in turn downgrade one or more of the other's concerns. Given this situation, what are our choices? We can continue in this manner, holding to our approaches, working toward our separate visions, with those who share our theories and strategies. We can give it all up and let others determine our future, or we can use the new fourfold approach that redefines each of your concepts to account for influences from all spheres, and that unites us all in successfully building a new liberatory society.

Human Nature Cynicism And Closing

SPEAKER_00 1:14:50

Smiling pleasantly. What do you think? Nate, Christ, Anna, not quite, but close. Pleury, I am inspired. Neopop. She's a little out of touch, isn't she? Morlin, opportunist Sophie, I'm willing to be persuaded, just as long as she doesn't quote Brigitte again. Rat Fem, I'm doubtful. Nate, so am I. What makes your approach any better than ours, Kohol? You are just as influenced as everyone else. Your approach is corrupted by white and Western ways of thinking. Rat Fem accusingly. Exactly. You grovel in front of scientism and capitulate to male thinking. Plury apolitically. Yes. Why do activists need all this theory anyway? When it comes to day to day actions, it becomes irrelevant. Anna, it also often becomes synonymous with sectarianism and elitism. Neopop, still wishing there was a chairperson. Would you have us intuit our ways to social change? Morlin, admiringly. Well put. Coho, confidently. Are you serious? Do you want me to throw out all theory or just mine? To successfully work for a liberated society, we need theory and strategy, and we also need each other. Our separate experiences and observations may give us special sensitivity to one or more aspects of life in the United States, but they are only partial observations and cannot provide us with complete pictures. Moreover, growing up in the US affects us all adversely. White male professionals become blind to most kinds of oppressions. Black male professionals understand racism but haven't got a clue to sexism and classism. White male workers may understand exploitations but be racist and sexist. White female workers may understand class but not racism. Black female professionals may understand race but not class. And not only all that, being black or lesbian or a worker doesn't necessarily guarantee that you won't yourself reproduce racism, sexism, or classism. While the oppressed often understand domination relations in the oppressor, they don't always understand the extent to which being oppressed has flawed their own, our own perceptions. If we are to avoid debilitating mistakes, intuition and experience are important, but so is theory. And if Rad Fim adopts a monus feminist theory because she understandably fears Marxists will erase her concerns about women, and Nate adopts a monus nationalist theory because he justifiably fears feminism will overshadow concerns for racial oppression, and so on, then each of our approaches will be skewed in some way. Morlin, frowning, but why not just enlarge Marxism's scope? Koho, no. Starting with purely economic or purely kinship community or political concepts will lead to seeing things too narrowly. Morland, but I can broaden my concepts. Koho, not enough. Unless you fundamentally redefine them, you will continue to highlight labor divisions but ignore sex practices. Calculate wages but ignore cultural identity. Track unemployment but misunderstand the state. Anna, but I can enlarge my domination concepts more naturally. Koho, perhaps, but if you do, you will find only those features of racism and sexism that are analogous to political hierarchy. You will oppose power differentials between men and women, but feminists will be the ones to analyze women sent in mothering and erodophobia. Koho continues, well meaning lonest claiming to generalize their concepts only encompass the economic authority, gender, or community aspect of other activities. Starting with economics, they look at the family as factory. Starting with gender, they look at the state as a complex of extended families, and so on. Arguing for expanded monism still fails to capture the unique attributes of other spheres. When it is time to take action, Marxists often slight gender concerns. Enlightened feminists procrastinate about racism. Nationalists blur class issues. Exceptions wash out in the predominant trends. Mona's theory yields myopic movements coupled by flimsy alliances. What we need now is a new theoretical approach that is inclusive, that corrects for biases, that can be flexibly expanded, and that presents an unfragmented view of reality. To use Radfem's analogy, we need a stew where all the different flavors are both separate and distinct before they go into the stew, but which, when joined together, complement and enhance the flavor of the whole. Radfem sorry she ever mentioned the stew. Okay, okay, forget the stew, will you? Sin, the cynic, and a new voice from the corner of the room says Excuse me, but there's one thing you've overlooked, Coho. Nate, frowning. Who's that person? Radfem shrugging, beats me, friend of yours, Sophie. Sophie, curious, never saw her before. Plur friendly. Let the person speak. Marlin, yes, I'm interested in what Koho overlooked. Sinically. Perhaps I'm being too negative, but you've overlooked the fact that no matter what the theory and how the realistic a picture of society it gives, you're dealing with a very flawed human nature. Just look at the conversation in this room. You can never be successful. Koho, tongue in cheek, interrupting a variety of annoyed responses, responds. Well then, in the face of such an analysis, I guess it's hardly worth continuing. Marlin, what? I've got more to say on the subject. Let's get on with it. Nate, right. Radfim, am all ears. Sophie, nothing would please me more. Neil Pop, just make it click. Plury, my excitement knows no bounds. Coholm rustles through his papers as the others eye her, and sin apprehensively. But for more, we need to navigate another chapter, and then we can have more dialogue. I hope this first dialogue and the ones to come will add something for you. But please remember they were written forty years ago, and seven people had to agree on all their content. And all that said, this is Michael Albert signing off for Revolution Z until next time.