Conversation

Hmm... I just read the Powell memo... can't identify the part this tweet is referring to. Could only find a line about education being taxpayer funded. Some help? Definitely a weird doc though. Amazing how completely the plan succeeded. billmoyers.com/wp-content/upl
Quote Tweet
Seems worth mentioning that one part of the strategy laid out in the Powell memo in the 1970s was to make college so expensive that students would graduate in so much debt they’d be less likely to work against corporate interests.
4
29
This bit is the closest I found. Maybe I'm not an attentive reader, but I didn't find anything that says what the tweet claims, and the whole memo has a tone of injured victimhood and fairly careful language. Maybe the strategy was laid out in further events triggered by this?
Image
3
10
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
I'm sympathetic to the thrust of the argument, but it's kinda irresponsible to be throwing out unsupported claims of this sort into this fraught environment... basically oil on a fire
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
There's a qualitative difference in both intent and substance though, between "let's cut tax support for universities" and "let's make college so expensive we create a system of debt bondage that won't dare rebel against corporations" ...
1
Replying to and
A qualitative difference between intent and substance? Not if the intent is the libidinal economy of the structure. For example, antiblackness is the libidinal economy of racism. The structures may differ but the game remains the same.
1
2
Replying to and
You misread my tweet. I said qualitative diff *in* intent and substance between what the memo says and what the quoted tweet claims it says. Ie, memo doesn't say what she says it says. Period.
1
Replying to and
When the intent is clear (as it often is to minoritized populations who are the victims of capitalist and technocultural logics) then your insistence on semantic alignment between thought and deed reads as equivocation, if not willful blindness
1
1