Satya Yuga is supposed to be this era that is all Communitas, as there is only one caste in Satya Yuga. A spiritual regeneration is what's needed, and as you said, it's true established religion can't provide that. It also maybe doesn't have to be a planetary event: if you can save your local environment, maybe that's enough?
While you raise a lot of great points here, I take issue with the basic premise of equating Communitas with anarchism & marxism, and Structure with capitalism or the state in general. The reason for this is because if both have existed in a complementary relationship in all societies, then a stateless society (such as that envisioned by anarchists) would necessarily include both, because most societies over the course of human existence have been stateless.
I think where this article goes wrong is seeing these aspects of society through the lens of our toxic, hierarchical, oppressive culture. Structure doesn't imply hierarchy or a hard division of labor, as status and rules and norms exist even where hierarchy and "jobs" (as we conceive of them) do not. The two are not the same.
For me the lens by which all theories of human society must be considered is a lens bigger than just the lens of our modern culture - a lens that includes indigenous cultures as representative of how humans have lived for 99.999% of our time on this planet.
Satya Yuga is supposed to be this era that is all Communitas, as there is only one caste in Satya Yuga. A spiritual regeneration is what's needed, and as you said, it's true established religion can't provide that. It also maybe doesn't have to be a planetary event: if you can save your local environment, maybe that's enough?
While you raise a lot of great points here, I take issue with the basic premise of equating Communitas with anarchism & marxism, and Structure with capitalism or the state in general. The reason for this is because if both have existed in a complementary relationship in all societies, then a stateless society (such as that envisioned by anarchists) would necessarily include both, because most societies over the course of human existence have been stateless.
I think where this article goes wrong is seeing these aspects of society through the lens of our toxic, hierarchical, oppressive culture. Structure doesn't imply hierarchy or a hard division of labor, as status and rules and norms exist even where hierarchy and "jobs" (as we conceive of them) do not. The two are not the same.
For me the lens by which all theories of human society must be considered is a lens bigger than just the lens of our modern culture - a lens that includes indigenous cultures as representative of how humans have lived for 99.999% of our time on this planet.