Max Sawicky wrote,
>I guess the most galling thing is the contrast between the
>media attention he soaks up and the lack of tangible
>political impact. This isn't simply a matter of 'just' writing
>books. If I see someone like Noam Chomsky get quoted on
>some issue, I get the feeling a political statement has been
>made. To try to be a little more specific, a political statement
>entails attaching some kind of analysis to an identification of
>friends, enemies, and some type of appropriate response,
>even vaguely described...
Is this to suggest, then, that lack of tangible political impact is O.K., as
long as one doesn't attract media attention? A kind of media asceticism?
The _political_ success of the Christian Right has been attributed by at
least one commentator (Phil Agre, a communications prof at UCSD) to their
success at addressing deeply felt _cultural_ issues that shape the terrain
upon which political statements can be made. Whether or not you like what
the Christian Right has to say, it's hard to argue with their success. And
it's a cop out to say "It's easy for them. They have all the money and they
pander to prejudice and ignorance."
I'm not sure that "making a political statement" is the same thing as
preparing the ground within which a political statement can take root and
grow. Therefore, I'm not eager to dismiss the political efficacy of
"non-political" statements. I've got better things to do than to try to
figure out whether Rifkin, as a case in point, specifically contributes to,
or detracts from, the ground upon which _others_ can make political statements.
I have heard -- from the horse's mouth (if I may call poor Jeremy a horse)
-- that he is more interested in opening up the discussion about work than
in being proven "right" in the final analysis. That's what he says, anyway.
It seems to me (IMHO) that a discussion about work can be an inherently more
political discussion than, say, a discussion about hairstyles or fly
fishing. And maybe -- just maybe -- that discussion can be more successfully
launched with a bit of gosh and golly techno-determinism than with an
intellectually and politically rigourous discussion of the modes and
relations of production in this or that historically specific regulatory
regime of accumulation, or whatever (if you see what I mean).
All I'm trying to say is:
political efficacy = factual accuracy + analytical rigour, NOT.
Ah, maybe I've watched _Music Man_ too many times and am starting to believe
that line about "You got trouble, right here in River City..."
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-3286 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
