> Chuck Grimes: " Of course there was collusion between captial, government,
> and education systems, with capital in the position to dictate terms. How
> could there not be."
>
> This is either totally and irredeemably wrong, or Chuck is guilty of
> misusing the English language when h speaks of "collusion." The word makes
> an empirical claim or it is entirely empty, even deceptive. And how can one
> make an empirical claim about three abstractions. "Capital" is not an
> agent;
> government is not an agent; the education system is not an agent. None of
> these entities can enter a room, check, for concealed microphones, then lay
> out a plan of action for the management of 300, 000 , 000 people.
> Individual
> persons with names and addresses _collude_.
> ... SNIP
>
jeez, is it any wonder that kids resist efforts to control their speech, to discipline their use of terms in informal exchanges and, basically, to ignore constant scolding Carrol, even people who agree with you conceptually tire of this line, this tone, this public scolding... While I am sure Chuck can defend himself, and I understand the limits associated with your eyes and reading... it IS possible, after all, to read sympathetically, to give people the benefit of the doubt, to anticipate that, maybe, just maybe, Chuck is an adult, with not insignificant life experience and self-reflexivity and fully aware that capital is a relation not an agent, that government is an institution not an agent and that the education system is dynamic not an agent and that, nevertheless, he might choose to expect folks here to know that he knows those things and to allow him to speak in shorthand, to use imperfect words, and to be read sympathetically rather than as one in need of infantilization... this is an email list after all and context matters particularly to comrades, no?