Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine

[nomadthethird]

No kidding.

 

[josef k.]

Do I look like I'm kidding?

 

[crackerjack]

this is beginning to seem eerily familiar

 

[nomadthethird]

I wish it were that interesting.

 

[josef k.]

It reminds me more of this:

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

"Feminists" did not criminalize prostitution. Nor do most feminists believe prostitution should be criminalized--in fact, it's feminists who've been pushing for decriminalization of prostitution for the purposes of better regulation and prosecution of rapists/abuser Johns for decades.

Padraig, do you know if San Francisco ever passed that proposition to legalize prostitution? It was eclipsed by proposition 8.

nah it got voted down (along with a rather hilarious prop to name a sewage treatmant plant after GW Bush). also it wasn't to legalize prostitution, impossible b/c of state law - it was some crazy loophole where it would've prevented arrest or prosectution of anyone for prostitution but it still would've been "illegal". though I think prostitution has been unofficially decriminalized there for a long time, pretty low on the cops' list of priorities (harassing homeless ppl though that's another story) - anyway I moved away from the Bay a few yrs ago, thinking about moving back tho.

and that about feminists - it's kind of both ways isn't it. there are certainly some feminists who've pushed for decriminalization & the like but there's defintely some that are hostile to sex workers - also pornography. I mean, I've known ppl on both sides (friends who did sex work as well) & I dunno, it's a touchy issue in a lot of those circles.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

The problem with it is that it assumes a) that all "Marxists" are actually Trotskyites-cum-academics, and b) that these "Marxists" don't actually agree with Weber on class. (?)

eh? I think you're reading that in a very limited way (perhaps in the way that it applies to that specific example of De Bottin), I understood it to be more generally about the Good vs. Evil narrative being a bad strategy to oppose neoliberalism with & the tendency of anti-globalization (many of whom are anything but Marxists, or "Marxists) to to frame the debate in those terms for personal reasons, viz. the issue of representation which we we were discussing.

 

[nomadthethird]

nah it got voted down (along with a rather hilarious prop to name a sewage treatmant plant after GW Bush). also it wasn't to legalize prostitution, impossible b/c of state law - it was some crazy loophole where it would've prevented arrest or prosectution of anyone for prostitution but it still would've been "illegal". though I think prostitution has been unofficially decriminalized there for a long time, pretty low on the cops' list of priorities (harassing homeless ppl though that's another story) - anyway I moved away from the Bay a few yrs ago, thinking about moving back tho.

and that about feminists - it's kind of both ways isn't it. there are certainly some feminists who've pushed for decriminalization & the like but there's defintely some that are hostile to sex workers - also pornography. I mean, I've known ppl on both sides (friends who did sex work as well) & I dunno, it's a touchy issue in a lot of those circles.

Ahh, ok, I was sure it wouldn't pass but I was unclear on the details. San Francisco is (unfortunately) lightyears ahead of NYC, Boston, D.C. on that score. Near my first apartment in Brooklyn, there were signs up everywhere "Stop Prostitution in Bushwick"... I was afraid to wear certain earrings and clothes because no matter what, every day, there'd be several creeps who'd drive reeeeally reeeeally slowly past and roll down their windows. Some of them were persistent, too. And I always thought "moi?" I'm the only legitimately employed person within a mile radius. Do I really look that much like a hooker? My downstairs neighbor was a hooker and she locked her two kids (around 7-10) out of her firstfloor apt for most of the evening and they'd sit on the stoop and eating ringdings from the bodega for dinner.

But yeah, there are many many feminists who are hostile to pornography and sex work, but they're usually second wave and not really very powerful a lobby anymore. At least not as powerful as they once were.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

The people who do oppose sex work do not oppose it "on the grounds that it is alienating", but on the grounds that it is exploitative of women who are a) mentally disabled, b) impoverished, c) drug addicted, and d) runaways/wards of state/etc, and that it spreads disease (and often other felony crimes) in already impoverished communities.

I dunno about "the grounds that it is alienating" (at least not stated in such a ridiculously wonky fashion) but surely there are many ppl, including some feminists (a conservative feminst after all is not exactly a contradiction in terms) who oppose on abstract moral grounds. perhaps sometimes in combination with some or all of your given reasons.

I guess I'm thinking of this more in terms of the related issue of pornography, Andrea Dworkin/Susan Brownmiller et al. vs. a myriad of other feminists. though I freely admit that radical feminist tracts are not my area of expertise

 

[nomadthethird]

eh? I think you're reading that in a very limited way (perhaps in the way that it applies to that specific example of De Bottin), I understood it to be more generally about the Good vs. Evil narrative being a bad strategy to oppose neoliberalism with & the tendency of anti-globalization (many of whom are anything but Marxists, or "Marxists) to to frame the debate in those terms for personal reasons, viz. the issue of representation which we we were discussing.

Yes, I know, that's the problem--there is nothing "at stake" for "Marxists" in academia. There aren't even that many "Marxists" in academia anymore. I agree with the point about Marxism being outmoded in certain respects, but what Josef said just seems like another strawman cooked up to make Marxism out to be much more prevalent than it is, and to be something that operates in a way I don't think it does anymore.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

But yeah, there are many many feminists who are hostile to pornography and sex work, but they're usually second wave and not really very powerful a lobby anymore. At least not as powerful as they once were.

fair enough.

 

[nomadthethird]

I dunno about "the grounds that it is alienating" (at least not stated in such a ridiculously wonky fashion) but surely there are many ppl, including some feminists (a conservative feminst after all is not exactly a contradiction in terms) who oppose on abstract moral grounds. perhaps sometimes in combination with some or all of your given reasons.

I guess I'm thinking of this more in terms of the related issue of pornography, Andrea Dworkin/Susan Brownmiller et al. vs. a myriad of other feminists. though I freely admit that radical feminist tracts are not my area of expertise

Right, there are certainly feminists on all sides of every issue. But as far as "the establishment" goes, almost nobody in the contemporary feminist establishment agrees with Dworkin/hardline anti-pornography advocates. She's sort of the Marx of the second wave--everyone reads her, everyone respects her, very few actually completely agree with her.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Yes, I know, that's the problem--there is nothing "at stake" for "Marxists" in academia. There aren't even that many "Marxists" in academia anymore. I agree with the point about Marxism being outmoded in certain respects, but what Josef said just seems like another strawman cooked up to make Marxism out to be much more prevalent than it is, and to be something that operates in a way I don't think it does anymore.

yeah but we weren't really talking about Marxism which I agree is mostly a dead horse (though things of worth can still be drawn from it). really we were talking about representation & the relation between representatives & the people they represent. in this case Marxist academics on behalf of street sweepers, but it could also apply to tribal/religious/political/what have you representation. we were also discussing the tendency of many people who oppose "globalization" (this being a thread about Naomi Klein after all) to construct a narrative that is simplistic and self-defeating. referring to "Capitalism" as this singular monolithic evil or in Klein's case a vast conspiracy.

 

[nomadthethird]

yeah but we weren't really talking about Marxism which I agree is mostly a dead horse (though things of worth can still be drawn from it). really we were talking about representation & the relation between representatives & the people they represent. in this case Marxist academics on behalf of street sweepers, but it could also apply to tribal/religious/political/what have you representation.

Yeah, I know, this is the same tired point we get from conservatives, over, and over.

There's a difference between "speaking for" and "speaking on behalf", and it's a pretty critical distinction to make. You never want to "speak for" a minority or social group to which you don't belong (or really even if you do belong to it), but in some cases, politically, it behooves those in power, with privilege, to stand up for the rights of those who don't have a voice and, yes, sometimes that involves speaking on their behalf.

I think it's ridiculous to claim that 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... sometimes you have to speak on behalf of a disempowered group to be sure its voice is even allowed into a discussion.

 

[vimothy]

Ah. So if you speak for -- but, critically, not on behalf of -- someone, their voice is heard? Or is it still your voice?

 

[nomadthethird]

So if you speak for -- but, critically, not on behalf of -- someone, their voice is heard? Or is it still your voice?

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.

 

[josef k.]

Ah. So if you speak for -- but, critically, not on behalf of -- someone, their voice is heard? Or is it still your voice?

An excellent question.

 

[vimothy]

Although I seem to have got that the wrong way round -- speaking on their behalf allows their voices to be heard...?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

There's a difference between "speaking for" and "speaking on behalf", and it's a pretty critical distinction to make. You never want to "speak for" a minority or social group to which you don't belong (or really even if you do belong to it), but in some cases, politically, it behooves those in power, with privilege, to stand up for the rights of those who don't have a voice and, yes, sometimes that involves speaking on their behalf.

I think it's ridiculous to claim that 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... sometimes you have to speak on behalf of a disempowered group to be sure its voice is even allowed into a discussion.

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.

 

[josef k.]

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.