> > That's the nature of hegemonic discourse - if you call a cop or a factory
> owner a killer you're perceived as wacky, out there,>
>
> Depends on just what has been done. The 41-bullet cops are legitimate
> candidates for the designation. Then there are the people running the
> factory in North Carolina where workers were killed in a fire because most
> of the doors were kept locked. I'm no lawyer, but to me that is a case of
> criminal negligence, but not first degree murder.
This shows the fallacy of adopting the criminal justice single-case paradigm and applying it willy-nilly beyond it's possible scope.
On such a basis, matters such as conscious intent -- nay, PROVABLE conscious intent -- are of utmost importance.
But what's far more important than the intent of the powerful is the effect on the powerless.
In *McClesky*, the Supreme Court threw out any consideration of racism based on effect -- which was overwhelming -- and said that only INTENT mattered. And that's a crucial part of what's wrong with the current political order.
Today's racism is largely sustained by this dualism. White privilege is structural and doesn't require anyone's intent -- at least for the most part. But it still has a multitude of devastating effects.
The same is true of class oppression, gender oppression, you name it -- what's most damaging isn't intentional, it's structural.
So, the point of calling the factory owner a murderer isn't to put him on trial or to sweep aside considerations of motive, etc. as you suppose.
Rather, it's to dramatically expose this dualism.
It's like the Wobblies used to do.
A man would run out into a public space and yell, "I"ve been robbed!"
Everyone would immediately draw up around him, and he'd begin telling them how -- just like them -- he'd been robbed by the capitalist system.
And he was absolutely right.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"