[Back to Main | Show Dates | Photos | Language Index]

the accountabilty of corporate-statism in contemporary crime.

first of all, continued props to bethx for her effective, level-headed and concise commentary. the issue at hand. these are reasonable examples if we limit the effects of corporate-statism to the entrenchment of differential wealth. i do not believe --- nor do i think that i am in limited company in believing --- that the full extent of corporate-statism and the commodification of our surroundings is exhibited in much more than the specifics of the distribution of economic resources. the alienation of the individual from the production of culture, the alienation of the individual from the appropriation of their own labor and the removal of the popular voice from the public dialogue are only the most prominent examples. we can see the effects of these instantiations of dehumanization in the emergence of many forms of societal normative deviance. columbine and the "whacked out kid" are prominent foci in the range of behavior brought about by a sense of meaninglessness brought about by the rigidly structured form of existence codified by corporate-statism which is not appropriately balanced by the preventative vigilence and communicative intervention indicative of well-functioning communities. this is particularly salient in suburbs where isolation is the norm and the fear of violence has been enhanced by a well-molded sensationalization of the details of crime in our society --- and inducing an over-estimation of its prevalence. oj simpson is indicative of the commodification of significant others prevalent in our society. we take personal offence when our loved-ones engage in personal acts of self-exploration with others. (abusive relationships and rampant disregard for heatlh aside) these acts are not inherently the business of our significant others. it's a tough fact to stomach, but it turns out to be true --- and a responsible adult will neither unnecessarily exploit nor ignore this truth. it seems that oj simply could not stomach it. i think that the root of this problem is sociological and NOT psychological --- just look at the pressures on males in our society to be "manly" and the issues of authority-breach that are attributed to cases of feminine infidelity. (and tell me with a straight face that you know a that you know a wealth-following, less-than-intelligent, conventionally-attractive and conspicuously adorned blonde woman who is not a disaster waiting to happen for the more "manly" among us.) i will not belabor the point, as i think that i have been sufficiently illustrative for preliminary discussion on this issue. i do however wish to reaffirm the assertion that the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the pro-punishment camp and ridirect michael to the requirements for effective argumentation in this regard. i imagine that i will have to wait for the weekend. peace.