THE AIM IS TOWARDS RECOVERY OF CLASSICAL CIVIC REPUBLICANISM (non-domination, civic virtue, and ordered liberty) as the primary lens, rather than structural racism or economic class relations as the root diagnosis. Its victory will be a victory for many other related schools as well. This can provide a forum for the “civic republican tradition across continents and centuries” from Cicero and classical sources through Petrarch, the American Founding, Mazzini and the Carbonari, early Black republican figures, related or comparative currents — essentially, the full history of the republican tradition. This led to the review of Bruno Leipold on Influence of Republicanism on Marx in Citizen Marx: Section I and II. Our stated mission is to reinvigorate this tradition against arbitrary power, to fortify democratic institutions, civic literacy, and human ingenuity through open deliberation and citizen formation. I have no interest in channeling that into the rehabilitation of the word “socialist.” I advocate to stand on the tradition alone. This explicitly presents the historical republican tradition itself as the product of eclecticism and synthesis and positions our recovery as a living continuation that deliberately diverges from modern materialist habits that leave us dependent on the very oligarchic and technocratic forces relied upon at present and opposed. What we have now are contradictory and conflicting patterns, where political commentators argue that the U.S. is a uni-party, while at the same time advocating their political solution through one-party state logic, where the main objective is to make sure that one particular party or wing within a party dominates in perpetuity. This is a sign of decay, not recovery of the republican tradition.
The refusal of left-right containment does not render the republican tradition irrelevant. On the contrary, the very persistence of domination in new institutional forms such as corporate concentration that turns markets into private governments, administrative apparatuses that issue binding rules without genuine popular authorization, platform infrastructures that condition speech and livelihood, and partisan capture that converts public offices into instruments of factional advantage continually reactivates the republican concern with arbitrary power, civic dependence, and the corruption of self-government. Because these phenomena cut across conventional economic and cultural alignments, republican analysis supplies diagnostic leverage unavailable to redistributionist or culturalist frameworks alone: it can expose how progressive expansions of state capacity may deepen clientelistic dependence even while pursuing equality, how market liberalization may recreate oligarchic vetoes over ordinary life even while expanding formal choice, and how both sides may collude in the erosion of intermediate institutions that once disciplined power. In this way the tradition remains a live resource for diagnosing institutional decay, for reframing constitutional design around non-domination rather than mere non-interference or equal outcomes, and for generating mobilizations that temporarily realign left and right around shared resistance to unaccountable rule, thereby repeatedly reshaping the very debates that cannot fully absorb it.
CONTRAST WITH LEFTIST FRAMEWORKS
Subscribe to continue reading
Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.