below, "rewritten neo-liberal hegemony," means, according to Graeber, that the anti-capitalist movement arguments against neoliberalism were eventually conceded. their arguments b/c the arguments of influential economists and presented in op-ed pages in leading dailies - albeit without acknowledging who initially made the critiques.
At 09:50 AM 2/24/2012, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>i think it's all related for Graeber, but what you describe isn't specific
>to cops. my director does this stuff all the time. and, unlike cops, he
>doesn't have an entire cultural mythology suggesting that the life of the
>cop isn't 80% mundane stuff like shuffling paper, directing traffic, etc.
>Interestingly, at the end of the book, Graeber points out that we export
>this cultural mythology of cops, the lone wolf who breaks all the rules
>and oerates outside of the context of bureaucracy, to the entire world.
>
>also of interest is his argument that the natural result of a political
>ontology of violence is terrorism.
>
>Oh, he also argues, and I wonder what people think about this, that:
>
>1. the anti-capitalist insurrections throughout the 90s and very early 00s
>were successful.
>2. global elites were challenged and terrified at this successful global
>resistance.
>3. Afghanistan, Iraq was the response for a global elite terrified that
>movements had successful rewritten neo-liberal hegemony.
>
>(War with Iran, on this view, is very likely going to be the result if
>Occupations continue unabated this Spring)
>
>At 09:26 AM 2/22/2012, Wojtek S wrote:
>>Shag: "Graeber has a fascinating analysis of all this in terms of what he
>>calls a Political Ontology of the Imagination v Political Ontology of
>>Violence. (Speaking of, I really like his explanation of how cops are
>>simply low level bureaucrats with guns, which is a good way to
>>understand their behavior.)"
>>
>>[WS:] I think he does much better when he talks about cops wanting to
>>"define the situation" (in the section why cops hate puppets) - which
>>does not have much to do with them being bureaucrats with guns. It
>>has something to do with the fact that in any situation defining the
>>situation is a crucial element of making other people to "go with the
>>program."
>>
>>Katz ("Seductions of Crime") demonstrates that by studying crime,
>>especially stick up. A successful stick up is when everyone,
>>including the victims, accept the definition of the situation as a
>>stickup, and consequently plays the respective role. Any disruption
>>poses a threat to defining the situation the way the robbers (or cops
>>or Carrol Cox ;) for that matter) want, and thus foils their plans. A
>>good example of it is in one of the Woody Allen films in which a would
>>be bank robber hands a stick-up note to the teller in which he
>>misspells the word "gun" ("I have a gub"). The tellers starts asking
>>him and then everyone around 'What is a gub?"
>>
>>I did not notice Graeber citing Katz on this, but he should have. I
>>find Katz's argument far more developed than Graeber's simple state
>>bashing. But he makes an excellent point why cops hate puppets, which
>>can be extend to some of the behaviors on this list as well ;).
>>
>>Wojtek
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>--
>http://cleandraws.com
>Wear Clean Draws
>('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)