A full repeat rather than another half-assed link. He's referring to every fantasy of the fucking avant-garde. Every time I read calls to end the family I think of this. Every fucking time I read the word communism, anarchism, it's never a call from a community under threat; it's always from individualists dreaming  a utopia of choice.  

Banging my fucking head against the wall. I thought Streeck was smarter.

In the order that seems to be emerging, social bonds are construed as a matter of taste and choice rather than of obligation, making communities appear as voluntary associations from which one can resign if they require excessive self-denial, rather than as ‘communities of fate’ with which one either rises or goes under. The new social media that have fast become almost indispensable tools of human sociability enable people to connect and associate with like-minded others on the most esoteric ‘subjective’ matters. As cyberspace trumps geography, the connection, elementary for traditional political mobilization, between shared interests and personal relations arising from physical vicinity is broken. One consequence is that social control among ‘network members’ is minimized; dropping out is easy, especially when people use pseudonyms—another facet of the new voluntarism of social relationships. Browsing the boundless supply of causes, tastes and lifestyles made available by the internet, one can freely decide to ‘like’ whatever one wishes; in contrast to old-school political parties, there is no pressure for ideological consistency or for adherence to a common programme.

"In the order that seems to be emerging..." As if he were writing in 1905.

Of course Streeck is right. That's why I have a fucking tag for Utopia and Intentional Communities 

Found this week on social media;

Haraway

The cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity. It is oppositional, utopian, and completely without innocence. No longer structured by the polarity of public and private, the cyborg defines a technological polis based partly on a revolution of social relations in the oikos, the household. Nature and culture are reworked; the one can no longer be the resource for appropriation or incorporation by the other. The relationships for forming wholes from parts, including those of polarity and hierarchical domination, are at issue in the cyborg world. Unlike the hopes of Frankenstein’s monster, the cyborg does not expect its father to save it through a restoration of the garden; that is, through the fabrication of a heterosexual mate, through its completion in a finished whole, a city and cosmos. The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust. Perhaps that is why I want to see if cyborgs can subvert the apocalypse of returning to nuclear dust in the manic compulsion to name the Enemy. Cyborgs are not reverent; they do not re-member the cosmos. They are wary of holism, but needy for connection—they seem to have a natural feel for united front politics, but without the vanguard party. The main trouble with cyborgs, of course, is that they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism. But illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins. Their fathers, after all, are inessential.

Gramsci 

I hate New Year that fall like fixed deadlines, that turn life into a commercial concern with its final balance. I choose my pauses myself. I don't want days of celebration with its mandatory collective rhythms, to share with all the strangers I don't care about. I await socialism for this reason too. Because it will hurl into the trash all of these dates which have no resonance in our spirit and, if it creates others, they will be our own, and not the ones we have to accept, without reservations, from our silly ancestors 

The Gramsci is a little off. The real quote's less annoying, but it's also over a hundred years old. The Haraway is as written but reads as updated mix of of Futurism and Bloomsbury: the reactionary and the elitist anti-political, the private world as the public one, bright young things and demimonde. If it were being read as a document of indulgent ironic conservatism I wouldn't be half as annoyed as I am.