Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine
- Thread starter baboon2004
- Start date
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
the thing that kills me though is that the truth is a trillion times more invidious.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
or "powerful" I guess depending on yer perspective. or maybe both.
"the thing that kills me though is that the truth is a trillion times more invidious."
You're right about that. And more difficult.
It is easy to condemn the system. But much harder to change it. And the two gestures are not always commensurable. After all: What would the hero do without the monster?
You're right about that. And more difficult.
It is easy to condemn the system. But much harder to change it. And the two gestures are not always commensurable. After all: What would the hero do without the monster?
Last edited:
Possibly not - but then again, the question of how systems are changed is not a simple one. Popular mobilization, followed by revolution, does provide an answer to this question - and it is true that revolutions do effect changes, even if these are seldom the changes desired, or dreamed about later. Broadly, Klein seems to believe in the importance of the task of raising consciousness of the - precisely - evil consequences of the ideas which underpin the present system. This idea clearly rests on a lot of assumptions - about the role of ideas, the morality of ideas, the idea that some ideas are morally better than others. Some of these assumptions might even be true. But when they are explicitly stated (as, for instance, Chomsky does in his interview with Foucault) they seem in many ways naive and pious. And then there is, again, the eternal question of the relationship of the movement to its leaders and theorists, and the politics involved in that positioning. If it is really the case that universal justice is an idea coming to us from the academy, and a heavy investment in theory, or from a professional magazine journalist, and a heavy investment in media currency, then certain political structures follow from that, and certain relationships are implied. It seems to me that these aspects don't tend to be widely considered.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
This is true. The debate in development economics as it stands has moved on from the era of the Washington Consensus to issues of how development policy should be tailored to fit the individual needs of the countries in question: growth diagnostics, as Rodrik calls it.
One paradox (outlined by Darren Acemoglu -- VoxEU summary here; full paper here) is the following: economic reform in places with weak institutions, i.e. in places where economic reform is badly needed, will have little effect; on the other hand, economic reform in places with strong institutions, i.e. where there is relatively less need, will be more successful, but consequently there is less room for improvement.
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
In the words of Malcolm X, the definitive comment on this topic;
"I'm telling you you don't know what a revolution is, because when you find out you'll get back in the alley, you'll get out of the way."
*EDIT* for the sake of clarity re: Josef's comment
incidentally there's a jungle tune, maybe more than one, that sample this speech but I can't remember the name or the prodcuer.
Last edited:
Yeah, but this is macho bullshit. The American revolution wasn't about the landed versus the landless - it was about the land-holding Americans versus the land-holding British. The French revolution was the bourgeoisie versus the aristocracy. The Russian revolution was the Bolsheviks versus Kerensky and company. Or what about the revolutions which produced a post-colonial Africa - for instance, in Zimbabwe. Power was gained by some, and lost by others, but the landless are still fucked, only now by a new set of rulers. As happened in the USSR as well. Party A switches with Party B - but the subaltern don't enter the pictures. Blood begets blood.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I knew I should have left out all that garbled business about land. I didn't want to make it seem like I was decontextualizing it any more than necessary. ah well, duly *edited* for the sake of clarity.
and more generally on revolutions yeah sure. "Bloody Revolutions" & all that.
I dunno but it seems to me like the oppressed/poor/landless/etc. are always always always going to be badly underrepresented if they are at all. of course one of the major problems is disenfranchisement & again when push comes to shove most of their bourgeois/wealthy allies are going to choose self-preservation. I wish had something more productive or insightful to offer on this but I really don't.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
everyone's always willing to fight to the last Palestinian.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
this makes me think of the Tribunes of the Roman pleb, representation being "determined by institutional predicates". what a weird episode in history that was. plus I guess no one was representing the slaves.
I dunno I guess I feel very strongly that humans at our cores very tribal animals, people really just want their team to kick some ass you know? sometimes if you're lucky you get to choose your team but still. this business of someone "representing" a tribe they don't come from or have a personal stake in I dunno. I mean it works better in affluent countries but cos of the affluence not the democracy or whatever yeah?
the counter is always "do you have a better idea" than this imperfect but generally functional one & no I don't. my counter counter is enjoy it while it lasts cause once all that affluence runs out things everywhere are going to be fucked as badly as they already are in big chunks of the world. competitive markets or not.
not to drag you guys down from your lofty post-whatever perch. I mean I like jawing about this stuff as much as the next faux nerd.
An interesting case study in the question of representation:
http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2009/02/non-pleasures-and-sorrows-of-de-botton.asp
http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2009/02/that-itde-botton-correspondence-in-full.asp
http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2009/02/one-final-thing.asp
One thing I find interesting is the initial attack is staged on behalf of the cleaners of Canary Wharf, whom I am sure will be grateful for it, but the final word presents the resulting conflict as between two schools of philosophical interpretation: on the one hand, "Oxbridge/Ivy league Plato scholarship" and on the other, the "rest of us [for whom philosophy's] central concern is justice."
http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2009/02/non-pleasures-and-sorrows-of-de-botton.asp
http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2009/02/that-itde-botton-correspondence-in-full.asp
http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2009/02/one-final-thing.asp
One thing I find interesting is the initial attack is staged on behalf of the cleaners of Canary Wharf, whom I am sure will be grateful for it, but the final word presents the resulting conflict as between two schools of philosophical interpretation: on the one hand, "Oxbridge/Ivy league Plato scholarship" and on the other, the "rest of us [for whom philosophy's] central concern is justice."
vimothy
yurp
That is interesting. And it happens quite... seemlessly. So, there are writers and there are non-writers. De Botton and IT seem to be arguing over who gets to represent non-writers in their writing. Moreover, IT seems to think that by virtue of the fact that he's not De Botton, his is the more authentic representation. But why should writers be deciding this amongst themselves?