Amish communities routinely practice the institution of rumspringa (from the German herumspringen, to jump around). At 17, their children (who until then have been subjected to strict family discipline) are set free and allowed, solicited even, to go out and experience the ways of the “American” world around them. They drive cars, listen to pop music, watch TV and get… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (7)Page 1 of 1 pagesNah, it was because the Constitution proposed under this vote was a lousy deal. It ensured the French, for example, less rights than did their original constitution under the French revolution. Nobody will vote for a lousy deal, if they’ve got any sense, even if it’s for a “product” they’ll eventually WANT - they hold out for a better one! (Which is what unions should be doing but don’t, often enough nowadays.)
(Though I didn’t know all that stuff about the Amish “rumspringa” - fascinating!!)
Posted by Liz on Jun 19, 2005 at 12:48 PM The European Constitution was 450 pages long?
That’s enough reason to vote NO right there!
Maybe the people who wrote it were trying not only to allow a Europe to be born, as a constitution would do, but, since the baby was long overdue in their view, to specify Europe’s maturation up to puberty, or beyond, on its birth certificate?
Back to the drawing boards. A one page constitution ought to be the aim, one which any European can pick up and understand. Then it just takes time to evolve from there.
Posted by John Francis Lee on Jun 19, 2005 at 6:48 PM Indeed, the ‘No’ vote of the French and the Dutch was a resounding slap in the face for all those who have proclaimed the ‘end of history’. However I am not so sure about positing Eurpoe as the only site of resistance to the peculair US blend of post modern capitalism allied to pre modern social and political forms. The fact is that Europe’s economy is thoroughly integrated with that of the US, and is part of the whole global system of capital. Indeed, several large European firms dominate US markets as effectively as US firms once dominated Europe’s markets.
I do not think that Europe can remain a ‘social market capitalist island’ in a sea of general global immiseration. That is a fantasy. The ‘No’ vote was a last depairing refusal - but in the end, the future awaits us all. That is, unless the US working class is able to rouse itself and attack the beast in its own lair. The reality is that the working class of the third world together with that of the US will either drive the stake or it will not be driven at all. IMO, the single most important movement today is the US anti war movement. If that movement can be developed into a general critique, then refusal of this last most virulent form of naked imperial aggression, then the US ruling class will have something to worry about. The movement in the US will be hastened to the extent that all progressive forces there work to assist the US working class organise, irrespective of their immigration status, in every workplace and town across the country. And it will not be assisted if the usual pattern of US unions trading concessions at home for support for US foreign policy persists. However I think this time there are grounds for hope that the lessons of the last 50 years may have been absorbed and understood by even the most obtuse US trade union leader. Let’s hope so. For every-one’s sake!
Posted by Jane Doe on Jun 20, 2005 at 1:12 AM Thank goodness for the French. Any country that gives 10% of its votes to Trotskyist parties (who are to the LEFT of the Communist [Stalinist] Party of France) has my respect.
Also, thank goodness for people who seem to get it; like Jane Doe. Although I don’t support inter-classist movements like the anti-war movement. Nor do I believe the unions are workers’ organizations, but that’s another point.
Soviets or extinction: that is humanity’s choice.
Posted by Maximillian Al-Dakari on Jun 21, 2005 at 11:53 AM “Soviets or extinction: that is humanity’s choice”
Can you say false (as in stupid!) dichotomy? Those of us who have been to the former soviet union or its satellites can only gasp at such ignorance as quoted above. The widespread destruction of both the environment and the human spirit being the most visible of the causalities. . .
Posted by howFunny on Jun 21, 2005 at 12:06 PM howFunny,
Apparently you don’t know what soviets are. If you did you would understand that the the so-called Soviet Union was a soviet state in name only. You would know that soviets continue to reappear every couple of decades, and are not Stalinist organisations but workers’ organisations. Look at your history: Russia 1917, Germany 1918, Hungary 1919, China 1927, East Germany 1956, Hungary 1956, Checkoslovakia 1968, Iran 1979, and Iraqi Kurdistan 1991. In each of these cases (a few of the better known ones), soviets arose with little or no knowledge, by the participants, of the past history of soviets. With no eadership or political party organizing them. They sprung up spontaneously, as workers found a way to organize outside (and against) the unions. Often the workers felt as if they were creating something new. But the organisational form of soviets has existed since the Paris Commune of 1871.
I happen to believe that soviets are the working class’s natural response to humanity’s crisis. And I also think that a global regime of soviets is necessary to the very survival of civilisation, and perhaps the survival of our species.
You can disagree with the opinions I have, but I am not ignorant on this issue at all.
Posted by Maximillian Al-Dakari on Jun 21, 2005 at 12:41 PM I’m going to have to agree whole heartedly with John Francis Lee on this one… I believe the french and the dutch rejected the new constiution because the vast majority of people do not have the time or the ability to crawl through hundreds of pages of legalese. People have enough trouble reading through the fine print on a mortgage application - is it hard to believe that someone might be reluctant to vote for a document that may have some hidden clause which will take away their basic freedoms?
If the EU wants a new constitution, they should follow KISS: Keep it simple, stupid. Declare some broad statements about freedom of the state and freedom of the individual, define the roles of the courts and the executive, and then let the courts determine the minutia of detail. If history repeats itself (as it seems to) this will lead to a stable, responsible democratic state.
Posted by ChefQuix on Jun 23, 2005 at 8:01 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Slavoj Zizek
- Why Cynics Are Wrong
The sublime shock of Obama's victory - Through the Glasses Darkly
What if the between-the-lines Republican message (don't be afraid, there will be no real change) is the true illusion? - The Audacity of Rhetoric
- The Ambiguous Legacy of ‘68
Forty years ago, what was revolutionized -- the world or capitalism? - China’s Valley of Tears
Is authoritarian capitalism the future? - The Disturbing Sounds of the Turkish March
The true problem with "militaristic humanism" resides not in "militaristic," but in "humanism," in the way a military intervention is presented as humanitarian aid
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
