Thanks always for your comment.

The blogosphere is good at forcing people to think horizontally, because different people will use different analogies and different approaches to make the same point. That, and the community it generates, are why I love blogging.

“Family Liberation” rhetorically focuses the mind on “soft lakotization,” but it also includes “hard lakotization” as well.

By adopting leftist rhetoric whe appropriate, we are able to selectively use leftist policies to shrink the gap. This is good.

My esteemed former RSR colleague TM inadvertantly demonstrated the reason for a point I had previously tried to make.

As to the rest of your post, excellent job BTW,I think you have defined ” Soft Lakotaization” rather well.

During the rise of industrialization in the US, it was young, single women who worked in the textile mills. They often lived away from their families in dormitories. Traditionally single women with under their father's roof until they were married. But in the textile mills they were earning their own money and so had achieved financial independence. My understanding is that this is thought to have contributed to the rise of the women's suffrage movement. And the breakdown of more authoritarian family structures.

I think Dan is onto to something here in recognizing the political role of families and tribes in many countries around the world that can make it very difficult or even impossible to establish the institutions of liberal democracy. The reality is we have to get these families and tribes to subordinate themselves to the new government. This can be done voluntarily through negotiation or through force. Peaceful means are the preferred method, but at some point the new governments in Afghanistan and Iraq will have to assert their authority. Democratic government will undermine the family/tribe both by establishing authority with the gov't and by empowering the individual as voter and political actor.

You are right on the destabilizing nature of industrialization. With “microfinance” and similar programs, we are seeing the latest generation of that in India and other places today.

Instead of subordinated/unsubordinated, perhaps a better divide is winning/losing. Some cultures “win” with increase connectivity. Much of the Anglosphere (Canada, USA, UK, Ireland, South Africa, India, Singapore, Australia, New Zeaand, etc) falls into this category. Others “lose” — think of the Arab world and questions of “what went wrong?”

There is an old saying: “When what you are doing is not working, stop doing it.” If a culture with strong family-ties is losing, make those family ties lose. Likewise, if a culture with weak family ties is losing (maybe like “old Europe”?), strengthen those ties.

There are Iraqi clan networks that are loyal to the current Iraqi regime. In fact, I would guess that a majority of those networks are loyal. Will those loyal networks also be “liberated”? If so, whatever makes you think that they will remain loyal to a regime that is trying to kill them off? You've still got a very big practical problem.

I would submit that Lakotization, soft or otherwise, is irredeemable. I can understand the impulse to use it. I have the same problem with analyzing economic fascism.

I don't recommend taking on that kind of language problem unless you absolutely have to. If you're looking for salability, try “ending unislamic repression of women” which achieves the result of recreating healthy family partnerships without throwing out the family structure baby out with the bath water.

Dan – “What went wrong” predates the industrial revolution. The islamic world has been falling behind for centuries, far longer than the industrial revolution has been with us.

Mark – Former colleague? When did former happen? I just write a bit more at Barnett's forum.

On the off-chance you were being serious, I'd point out that- from a practical standpoint- destroying the livelihoods and internal control systems of a community you're connected to is nuts. Even granting that it allows for the building of new control systems and economics within the community, you'd be competing with people (gangs, Al Qaeda) to see who's concepts get put in place. The only way it would really work is if you combined it with a dramatic increase in connectivity, and that could backfire too by increasing the available options for hurting you.