By David Kowalski
[I wrote the following, satirical piece a few years ago while concentrating my studies on postmodernism].
In Postmodernity it’s easy to be a scholar in any field, including theology! Just follow the ten easy steps below.
You must first conform to postmodern vocabulary by regurgitating and making liberal use of the latest and coolest words such as “deconstruct,” “community,” “narrative,” “authentic,” “postfoundational,” “paradigms,” “models,” “connectivity,” “generous,” “missional,” “new,” “signify,” “reductionist,” and “matrix.””The giving-wayness of reductionist systems reconceptualizes the authentic matrix of deconstructed, community paradigms; signifying the emergence of postmodern narratives which produce a more generous, missional model of new, postfoundational connectivity.”
REST IS HERE
Source: “Towards a People’s Democracy: The UDF View,” Review of African Political Economy, No. 40, Southern Africa: The Crisis Continues (Dec., 1987), pp. 81-8
Part of speech by Murphy Morobe, then-Acting Publicity for the anti-apartheid United Democratic Front (UDF) in South Africa, in May 1987. The UDF was a massive coalition including unions (although not the radical “workerist” unions of FOSATU), “civics” (township community bodies), churches, students etc.
Lucien van der walt writes: “The UDF is of interest in two main ways.
First, it was “non-racial” meaning that it admitted all who shared its views, including whites, and aimed at creating a “new nation” of all who lived in South Africa. Also notable was the large participation of minorities like Coloureds and Indians. This is very different to the current (ruling) African National Congress (ANC), which is now almost entirely comprised of black Africans, and marked by an increasingly narrow nationalism. By the late 1980s the (then-illegal) ANC had firm control of the UDF, and closed it down when it (the ANC) was legalised.
Second, while the UDF was highly contested (e.g. radicals and the ANC), it often evinced a very bottom-up approach to democracy (it rejected the idea that a democratic South Africa would be based primarily on parliamentary and elite rule), and had a prefigurative approach. This meant that it saw the bottom-up democratic structures of “people’s power” and “non-racialism” created in present struggles as the basis for the future SA i.e. the means used determined the ends achieved, and the means and ends should be non-racial and based to a large degree on participatory democracy, including in communities and in the economy).”
“When we speak of majority rule, we do not mean that black faces must simply replace white faces in parliament. A democratic solution in South Africa involves all South Africans, and in particular the working class, having control over all areas of daily existence – from national policy to housing, from schooling to working conditions, from transport to consumption of food. This for us is the essence of democracy. When we say that the people shall govern, we mean at all levels and in all spheres, and we demand that there be real, effective control on a daily basis.”
Classic exposition of Bakunin’s ideas, showing where he differed from – and agreed with — Marx and how — on the whole — Bakunin was proven correct by events. And why he remains relevant.