to the ever-complaining iamdemocracy: why don't *you* write a response to this?
i can, however, predict his reply: rajeev should write a response. after all, iamdemocracy's role is simply to whine, never to do anything.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Naresh
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070326/deb
The Spoils of Indian Democracy
by SIDDHARTHA DEB
[from the March 26, 2007 issue]
There is a fundamental dissonance between lived experience and analysis that becomes pronounced at certain times, across particular cultures and in relation to certain subjects. Today this is especially true of books that look at people living on the margins of globalization, at groups whose assimilation into the model of neoliberal capitalism is still unfinished, still unpredictable. All too often, a writer crossing the border into other realms of existence chooses to ignore the dissonance, offering an analysis that hardly takes into account the difference between the way things look from the Western centers of neoliberal capitalism and the way life feels in the new capitalist outposts in Asia.
... deleted
1 comment:
Naresh and Rajeev, I trust intellectuals have been resisting these rabid commies all through their life. The problem is not how to prove them wrong. They are wrong, ill-meaning, and vicious. They have been that way all through. BUT, and this is the crux of the matter, they have been focussed, organised, and paid for their divisive activities.
In contrast, we spend our own time and money; we have little support from any organisation, and we tend to argue amongst ourselves rather than align.
Argument itself is quite healthy and welcome, however, we must consider aligning ourselves. Take this very topic.
If some intellectual refutes this derailed commie and his point of view, what purpose will it serve? Who will read it? Who reads the article in the first place? Till we aren't clear about these issues, can we spend our time and effort on proving this (possibly insignificant) commie wrong?
Post a Comment