Norman Finkelstein: "Why isn't Angela Davis asking herself: 'why am I getting all these hysterical warm receptions from all of these filthy rich crooks'?"
His point, expressed in the worst possible way, is that she doesn't threaten power and is part of the state's recuperation of the Black radical tradition. We all know the fate of actual Black radicals and revolutionaries, so the fact that she can continue to give speaking tours while people like Mumia Abu-Jamal rot in prison is telling. Even someone like Omali Yeshitela, who's a bit of a crank, received more harassment than her. She once upon a time was a threat to the state, but that time has long since passed.
Both, kinda. I can't think of any reasons that would be bad. I think if his argument is only a rhetorical question it's a bit lacking. Surely he knows how Engels got all that money?
I think his point is that Angela Davis no longer threatens power. In fact, it could be argued that ultimately her actions support power. Prison abolition simply is not on the table and never was, so her advocating for it just allows centimillionaires an opportunity to seem scandalously progressive in a way that will never threaten their wealth.
The rich get a kind of liberal clout by getting to be associated with someone like Davis, it allows them to cognitively separate themselves from Charles Koch while having to put exactly 0 skin in the game.
How does Davis' actions support power? Does she not accomplish anything beyond being a "vibe" for the rich? Is Norm different from her in this respect?
no, he's been 'cancelled', therefore more insurgent and more morally pure than the lady who's actually been prosecuted and imprisoned by the state :peltier-laugh:
Yeah I wouldn't say I specifically argue that, but I know Norm does. As far as I can remember his beef is her criticizing Bernie as economistic and not being able to speak on race.
there might be a few libertarians imagining it prunes the state apparatus & would replace it with private debtors prisons but it's not like rich activist liberals are incapable of funding/supporting genuinely good things
"oh no a rich guy has donated to my soup kitchen :ooooooooooooooh: what am i doing wrong???"
Also see: duplicitous SPD in interwar Germany under Ebert, Constantine's recuperation of Christianity effectively neutering its symbolic class conscious political potential under the rebranded "Holy" Roman Empire, etc.
Do capitalists still need those types of figures? Did they not complete their revolution many decades ago? Do they need to justify themselves at this point when they already control all levers of power?
I'd like to hear in detail why he thinks the filthy rich crooks do praise Davis. What is their goal? What do they hope to gain?
His point, expressed in the worst possible way, is that she doesn't threaten power and is part of the state's recuperation of the Black radical tradition. We all know the fate of actual Black radicals and revolutionaries, so the fact that she can continue to give speaking tours while people like Mumia Abu-Jamal rot in prison is telling. Even someone like Omali Yeshitela, who's a bit of a crank, received more harassment than her. She once upon a time was a threat to the state, but that time has long since passed.
Are you asking because you don't know? Or do you just want him specifically to address this?
Both, kinda. I can't think of any reasons that would be bad. I think if his argument is only a rhetorical question it's a bit lacking. Surely he knows how Engels got all that money?
I think his point is that Angela Davis no longer threatens power. In fact, it could be argued that ultimately her actions support power. Prison abolition simply is not on the table and never was, so her advocating for it just allows centimillionaires an opportunity to seem scandalously progressive in a way that will never threaten their wealth.
The rich get a kind of liberal clout by getting to be associated with someone like Davis, it allows them to cognitively separate themselves from Charles Koch while having to put exactly 0 skin in the game.
How does Davis' actions support power? Does she not accomplish anything beyond being a "vibe" for the rich? Is Norm different from her in this respect?
no, he's been 'cancelled', therefore more insurgent and more morally pure than the lady who's actually been prosecuted and imprisoned by the state :peltier-laugh:
Yeah I wouldn't say I specifically argue that, but I know Norm does. As far as I can remember his beef is her criticizing Bernie as economistic and not being able to speak on race.
there might be a few libertarians imagining it prunes the state apparatus & would replace it with private debtors prisons but it's not like rich activist liberals are incapable of funding/supporting genuinely good things
"oh no a rich guy has donated to my soup kitchen :ooooooooooooooh: what am i doing wrong???"
MF_COOM directly answered dis, but here's some perhaps relevant consideration from that Marx guy.
Also see: duplicitous SPD in interwar Germany under Ebert, Constantine's recuperation of Christianity effectively neutering its symbolic class conscious political potential under the rebranded "Holy" Roman Empire, etc.
Do capitalists still need those types of figures? Did they not complete their revolution many decades ago? Do they need to justify themselves at this point when they already control all levers of power?