"If Marxism had ever produced a functional, prosperous society, it might have looked something like this tiny southern Japanese island."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/world/asia/22japan.html
This NYtimes article describes the village of Hime Island that uses a work-sharing system aided by government subsidies to decrease unemployment. Hime's work-sharing is viewed as a traditional approach towards the Japanese ideals of harmony. While the author of the article wants to suggest this is Marxist socialism, I feel this is more a form of patrimonialism on a second look.
Some interesting notes from the article:
"Nor does the island’s penchant for equality stop at work-sharing. At an annual village ceremony to mark the coming of age of 20-year-old islanders, women are forbidden to wear traditional
kimonos for fear the differences in quality could reveal their households’ economic status."
"Many islanders say they accept the status quo simply because life here is comfortable. They say rocking the boat would only ostracize them on an island where everyone knows one another."
"My job is to prevent elections by keeping everyone equal, and thus happy,said Mr. Fujimoto[the current mayor], 65, sitting in a modest office in the village hall. His only visible sign of authority was a buzzer on his desk that he pushed to summon an assistant."
1 comment:
my first reaction was "sign me up!" until i read the last paragraph...
"That conservatism is strong enough at times to annoy even Mr. Fujimoto. His biggest complaint is that traditional attitudes prevent him from extending family control of the mayor’s office for another generation, because he has only a daughter.
“Hime Island can’t be run by a woman,” he sighed. “This place is too medieval for that.”"
hm, no feminist movement there..yet.
and it's interesting that most of the stuff is "government subsidized" because what does that actually mean? are the people self-sustaining or do they need additional resources from outside their locality?
last point. it's interesting there's a sort of cult of personality/charismatic leadership going on here because there seems to be a trend of this occurring when there is a shift toward a more government run society (ie: singapore (forgot his name), mao in china, castro in cuba) and even though these leaders are incredibly popular (at some point) is it democratic?
Post a Comment