by americandream » Thu 26 Nov 2009, 20:44:58
This was an objective statement, not one endorsing tribalism. If like me, you adhere to a notion of dialectic materialism, you would have gleaned from my comments on here over the years, that I do not see us ever regressing to earlier forms of social organisation. Alternative forms yes, but ones that arise out of the context of surrounding material imperatives, not a return to some golden age of innocence, which by the way has never existed.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'T')he urban gangs in South Africa aren't even remotely close to the rural tribals in character. Tribalism is very much a contrasting system to capitalism. An alternative in fact. Gangs in contrast strike me as being a function of capitalisms failures. A testimony to its hierarchical nature. A scavenger feeding off its excess.
Yes, and guess what happens when a complex society fails? It
de-volves to a less complex form, it doesn't
e-volve to something more complex. If gangs are a manifestation of capitalistic failure, then they are a
de-volution to something that preceded the complex city-state structure, which is to say,
tribal chiefdoms or further still,
tribes...
'Civilizational evolution' is a process of ever-increasing
inclusivity and integration (forced or otherwise). When a society collapses, it
dis-integrates back into its smaller constituents. When the nation-state fails, you're left with separate city-states. When a city-state fails, you get rival chiefdoms and/or tribal clans...