Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine

nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
padraig (u.s.) said:
yes but no one made that claim, bit of a strawman there really. you make it sound as if we were demanding that middle class community organizers cease & desist. when actually we were discussing in broad (pretty abstract, actually) terms about what ties representatives to their charges, how both parties benefit, suffer or possibly both from the arrangement. in fact the whole thrust of my point has been that self-interest is usually the only reliable insurance of good representation; I believe I also made more than reference to individual exceptions.

if you don't want to read 10 pages of comments that's well enough but please don't jump in at page 6 & start taking things out of context.
Click to expand...

Vimothy makes that claim often.
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
nomadthesecond said:
Had many, many white people who were in power--both regular citizens and those in government and especially legislature--in the early 50 through the late 60s not spoken up on behalf of black rights, the civil rights movement simply could not have made the anti-segregationist gains that it made.

Hell let's take it back to the abolitionists.
Click to expand...

& without the pressure from black people how many of those white people would have spoken up out of the goodness of their hearts? some of them sure, not all of them by a long shot. & the abolitionists never would've have gotten anything done if there weren't other more powerful interests who didn't give a moral toss about slavery backing them up. does this discredit the abolitionists or civil rights activists? no, clearly not. the claim isn't that no one in a position of power can speak for people who are disenfranchised, ever, it's just that you have to be well wary pretty much always.

really I don't even see how what we're saying is incompatible.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Anyone standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised or disempowered should stop standing up for those rights because that's too much like "speaking for" them...
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
josef k. said:
It has to be a question of how you speak. It is difficult to know for certain on whose behalf you speak. Psychology interferes with you view of the world.
Click to expand...

Of course... but this doesn't make it any less important or vital that those who have the power extend it to others--the forms that take are always going to be subject to all kinds of forces--psychological, economic, political, "racial", etc. This is assumin you really believe in democracy and egalitarianism, of course.
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
padraig (u.s.) said:
I can't speak for Vimothy, only myself, but perhaps you shouldn't conflate our views. & that's not a claim that has been in this thread, certainly not in the insidious way in which you're describing.
Click to expand...

I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to Vimothy and Josef. You responded to my responses.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Nomad's quite right.

Anyone standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised or disempowered should stop standing up for those rights because that's too much like "speaking for" them...

Aaarghh -- I've done it again!
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
vimothy said:
Anyone standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised or disempowered should stop standing up for those rights because that's too much like "speaking for" them...
Click to expand...

Yup, of course.

Child sex slaves should just keep doing blow jobs in Tehran for 50 cents a day and a falafel sandwich.
 
J

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
"Anyone standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised or disempowered should stop standing up for those rights because that's too much like "speaking for" them..."

I can't agree with this... at least not on principle. I think the central thing needs to be that the objects connect, and I don't think they do in the case of someone insulting a book on the basis they speak for the street-sweepers. And I'm not sure they do either in the case of Naomi Klein's polemic against the evils of Milton Friedman. But perhaps this is a different issue.
 
Last edited:
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
vimothy said:
Nomad's quite right.

Anyone standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised or disempowered should stop standing up for those rights because that's too much like "speaking for" them...

Aaarghh -- I've done it again!
Click to expand...

That's the exact opposite of what I said nitwit.
 
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
josef k. said:
"Anyone standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised or disempowered should stop standing up for those rights because that's too much like "speaking for" them..."

I can't agree with this... at least not on principle. I think the central thing needs to be that the objects connect, and I don't think they do in the case of someone insulting a book on the basis they speak for the street-sweepers.
Click to expand...

Huh? This makes no sense to me.
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
nomadthesecond said:
Of course... but this doesn't make it any less important or vital that those who have the power extend it to others--the forms that take are always going to be subject to all kinds of forces--psychological, economic, political, "racial", etc. This is assumin you really believe in democracy and egalitarianism, of course.
Click to expand...

this sounds fantastic if the people in power buy into it. which, ah...

I mean like most things having to do w/democracy this all works better the more affluence there is, more surplus of power so to speak. but there isn't enough affluence to go around is there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top