Louis wrote:
>One of the most interesting points made in a NY Times article today about
>the Littleton massacre is that the school was divided by class
>distinctions. The "preps" and the "jocks" were on top, and "nerds" and
>"geeks" were at the bottom. The people at the top wore Gap and Abercrombie
>& Fitch clothing exclusively.
>
>The point that must be made is that high school prepares you for class
>society by imposing a brutal reign based on these distinctions, while not
>permitting you to move up the social ladder. Somebody whose parents lack
>money or who is not athletically gifted is condemned to remain in the lower
>classes until graduation. Resentments can boil high--to the point of murder
>nowadays.
>
_____________________
This is an interesting idea, coming from the mouthpiece of the ruling elite
(NYT, not Louis!). The NYT can't seem to get the concept of class down
right. Yes there were cliques at Columbine. But the distinctions were not
based on any kind of Marxist concept of class. This is one of
the wealthiest suburbs of Denver. (I used to live in Denver - not this part!)
The shooters drove to their prey in a BMW! One of the shooters lived
in a 5000 sq ft mansionette, sitting on several acres, surrounded by its
own fence and a gate. These people are one step ABOVE "gated communities."
By raising the "class issue" the NYT seems to be trying to preempt any real
marxist or left analysis of what is going on. Jim Devine's post (excerpted
below) is a much better analysis. I should note, all but one of the
letters to the SF Chronicle made arguments similar to posts on PEN-L.
1) the hypocrisy of Clinton calling for using words rather than violence,
2) that this is another symptom of a society that glorifies violence as
the solution to every problem,
3) that the correct response would be to re-institute after school programs
in the arts, and music, reduce class sizes (especially
in the lower grades, as Alan Krueger has noted) and rehire all
the school counselors who have been fired
- but the actual response will be more restrictions on civil liberties,
(i.e., the Clinton doctrine - domestic version.)
----------------------------------------------------
Jim Devine is going down the right road here:
The problem is that capitalism abhors community, especially egalitarian and
democratic ones. The permanence of everyday forms of living which allows
people to develop ways of living with each other is continually disrupted
by the dynamism of an economy dominated by aggressive profit-seeking.
Further, a lot of communities have been destroyed by government efforts (in
alliance with corporate greed) to solve social problems using "urban
renewal" (what people in Chicago learned to call "Negro removal"),
freeway-building, and the like.
The kind of communities favored by capitalism are (a) top-down bureaucratic
communities ("corporate culture"), very much under control, and (b)
atomized communities joined by such weak links as the passive voting in a
secret ballot, based on information received by corporate media. Even
community organizations of people upset about violence and the like seem to
be subordinated to the official police and encouraged to go in the
direction of walling themselves off from the world, which encourages
another kind of atomization.
---------------------------------------------
Doug Orr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ps. can someone send me a copy of Clinton's quote (off list please). I
accidentally
deleted it. thanks.
--Boundary_(ID_WlBFMGyDDq4xpRWaD9tJHQ)--
