> Mike Ballard wrote: > >Why *don't* the proles revolt? After all, capitalism > >is way past its "use-by" date by now. That's > >demonstrated on this list daily by the countless, > >excellent news articles posted. > > > >Could this condition originate in a conservative > >psychological character structure rooted in the > >upbringing of individuals within societies where the > >monogamous-paternalistic family, private property and > >the State permeate social relations?
Doug writes: > Or, if you want to take it further, there's Judith Butler's argument > - rooted in that silly doctrine called psychoanalysis - that subjects > are formed in subjection (through deference to authority figures, > like parents, and their successors, like language and law), and that > attitude of deference to authority persists through life, for fear of > the disintegration of the subject. how does one decide that Butler's analysis is valid but that (say) Christopher Lasch's equally psychoanalytic analysis at the end of his life was not? (BTW, how does Butler's analysis differ from that of the early Wilhelm Reich? and how does she avoid going the way of the later Wilhelm Reich? How does her analysis differ from that of Marcuse?) Jim Devine "happiness is a warm kitten."
