[L-I] Forwarded from Jim Farmelant
FRANTZ FANON was born in Martinique and educated in France, where he became a psychiatrist. In 1953, he went to work in Algeria and soon sided with the nationalists engaged in armed resistance against the French. Through his psychiatric work, Fanon was one of the few people other than victims or perpetrators who knew the full extent of the French army's use of torture against those fighting for an independent Algeria. Shortly before he died, Fanon wrote _Les Damnés de la Terre&_(The Wretched of the Earth, 1961), the book he is best remembered for, although its very notoriety overshadows his other work. A sort of non-Marxist bible of the oppressed, it was seized on by mid-century radicals in the third world as justifying violence not only for national independence but as a response to racism and poverty. The Fanon who is likelier to interest today's readers is the doctor who saw at first hand how humiliation and prejudice can affect people on both sides of the colour barrier and who struggled to understand the pathology of ethnic hatred. Fanon never thought of himself as black until he arrived in France, where he found himself stereotyped midway between the tirailleurs sénégalais, who were trained to frighten civilian populations, and the fez-wearing black face that grinned at children from cocoa packets of Banania. The shock was a lasting one. As Fanon lay dying from leukaemia, he had a nightmare of being put through a washing-machine and de-negrified. Blackness, he wrote, does not exist as such. It is something one discovers in another's gaze. David Macey's life of Fanon provides, as background, an excellent guide to the history of French decolonisation and the intellectual debates of post-war France. The contrast between the abstract belief in liberté, égalité, fraternité that was preached from Dunkirk to Fort-de-France and the reality of otherness, which Fanon experienced on arriving in France to study medicine, provides a haunting, if at times overdone, leitmotif that runs through the book, as it did through his life. Fanon's first book, _Peau noire, masques blancs_ (Black Skin, White Masks), which was published in 1952, is an angry young man's book, that mingles personal experiences and psycho-social ideas. Fanon had little patience with the cult of négritude which Aimé Césaire, also from Martinique, and Léopold Senghor, who became president of Senegal, believed would transcend racial barriers and rehabilitate African culture. His interest in mankind was broader. With François Tosquelles, a Catalan-born psychiatrist, he experimented in social therapy. This, and his encounter with Algerian workers in Lyons who suffered from what he identified as the North African syndrome, a psychosomatic condition brought on by being cut off from one's home environment, prepared him for his later work in Algeria. There, he worked in a hospital with white, Arab and Kabyle patients. This reinforced his interest in the social dimension of some psychological ailments. Psychotherapy, in his view, involved understanding the patient's way of seeing the world, however irrational it might seem. As the violence increased in Algeria, Fanon treated (mostly Arab) victims and (mostly French) perpetrators of torture who appealed to him for help. He turned no one away and found that both needed care. Fanon died before Algeria became independent in July 1962. Its soldiers and religious thugs have since made nonsense of his hopeful theory that purifying violence would spend itself once independence was achieved. He seems here to have forgotten a truer observation of his, taken directly from clinical experience: in face of violence and humiliation, victims will turn also on each other. It is for conclusions such as this, and for his other pioneering work in the psychology of ethnic prejudice, that Fanon deserves to be read and remembered. Copyright © 1995-2001 The Economist Newspaper Group Ltd. All rights reserved. --- Macdonald Stainsby Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion. http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/rad-green Leninist-International: Building bridges within Marxism in the tradition of V.I. Lenin. http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Lunatics Liberation Front
As just one more example of how dangerous it is to just go get help for 'psych' conditions, one might pofitably explore what happens to US parents when they try to search for help with their children's behavioral problems. SaveOneStarfish is a website started by three US school nurses, appalled by what is going on in the schools. They correctly refer to the increasing amphetamine dosing of US children as 'criminalizing childhood'. Despite the 'Just Say No to Drugs' campaign of The Establishment, the truth is that American society is addicted to just saying yes to drugging its little kids. Especially, Bad Boys get Bad Drugs when they act Bad.And yes, apparently US society has found that there are many more 'bad boys' than 'bad girls'. The interesting content of this site is in the sections- News and Archives. The US now uses 90% of the world's Ritalin! Providing a decent environment for children to grow up in has been replaced by the pilling and 'counselling' of them. There is now the beginnings of a trend to even begin doing this with 2 and 3 year olds. Onward ...Lunatics Liberation Front! Save The Children from The 'Psych' Industry. And Just Say No To Drugs. (most of the time, Carrol) SaveOneStarfish @ http//members.aol.com/SaveOneStarfish ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] Re: Lunatics Liberation Front
Louis Proyect dijo: > Carrol Cox: > >My concern was the nature of capitalism. What capitalism _is_. And all the > >stuff you wanted me to read (including Blaut's writings) simply had no > >relevance > >to that question. > > >Hopeless. > > >Louis Proyect > >Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ > > I would say the same, but you were quicker than me... Cox continued: >Jim's >utter commitment to the Puerto Rican Revolution was the core of his >work and that showed through magnificently despite his positivist (and >*anti*- >marxist) belief expressed in a post a couple years ago -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 Shop online without a credit card http://www.rocketcash.com RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] Re: Lunatics Liberation Front
Carrol Cox: >My concern was the nature of capitalism. What capitalism _is_. And all the >stuff you wanted me to read (including Blaut's writings) simply had no >relevance >to that question. Hopeless. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
The Economist on Frantz Fanon
http://www.economist.com/books/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=471787&CFID=8 12624&CFTOKEN=5140599 Title: Economist.com: Doctor’s mask The roots of prejudice Doctor’s mask Jan 11th 2001From The Economist print edition FRANTZ FANON: A LIFE.By David Macey.Granta; 656 pages; £25 FRANTZ FANON was born in Martinique and educated in France, where he became a psychiatrist. In 1953, he went to work in Algeria and soon sided with the nationalists engaged in armed resistance against the French. Through his psychiatric work, Fanon was one of the few people other than victims or perpetrators who knew the full extent of the French army’s use of torture against those fighting for an independent Algeria. Shortly before he died, Fanon wrote “Les Damnés de la Terre” (The Wretched of the Earth, 1961), the book he is best remembered for, although its very notoriety overshadows his other work. A sort of non-Marxist bible of the oppressed, it was seized on by mid-century radicals in the third world as justifying violence not only for national independence but as a response to racism and poverty. The Fanon who is likelier to interest today’s readers is the doctor who saw at first hand how humiliation and prejudice can affect people on both sides of the colour barrier and who struggled to understand the pathology of ethnic hatred. Fanon never thought of himself as black until he arrived in France, where he found himself stereotyped midway between the tirailleurs sénégalais, who were trained to frighten civilian populations, and the fez-wearing black face that grinned at children from cocoa packets of Banania. The shock was a lasting one. As Fanon lay dying from leukaemia, he had a nightmare of being put through a washing-machine and “de-negrified”. Blackness, he wrote, does not exist as such. It is something one discovers in another’s gaze. David Macey’s life of Fanon provides, as background, an excellent guide to the history of French decolonisation and the intellectual debates of post-war France. The contrast between the abstract belief in liberté, égalité, fraternité that was preached from Dunkirk to Fort-de-France and the reality of “otherness”, which Fanon experienced on arriving in France to study medicine, provides a haunting, if at times overdone, leitmotif that runs through the book, as it did through his life. Fanon’s first book, “Peau noire, masques blancs” (Black Skin, White Masks), which was published in 1952, is an angry young man’s book, that mingles personal experiences and psycho-social ideas. Fanon had little patience with the cult of négritude which Aimé Césaire, also from Martinique, and Léopold Senghor, who became president of Senegal, believed would transcend racial barriers and rehabilitate African culture. His interest in mankind was broader. With François Tosquelles, a Catalan-born psychiatrist, he experimented in social therapy. This, and his encounter with Algerian workers in Lyons who suffered from what he identified as the “North African syndrome”, a psychosomatic condition brought on by being cut off from one’s home environment, prepared him for his later work in Algeria. There, he worked in a hospital with white, Arab and Kabyle patients. This reinforced his interest in the social dimension of some psychological ailments. Psychotherapy, in his view, involved understanding the patient’s way of seeing the world, however irrational it might seem. As the violence increased in Algeria, Fanon treated (mostly Arab) victims and (mostly French) perpetrators of torture who appealed to him for help. He turned no one away and found that both needed care. Fanon died before Algeria became independent in July 1962. Its soldiers and religious thugs have since made nonsense of his hopeful theory that “purifying” violence would spend itself once independence was achieved. He seems here to have forgotten a truer observation of his, taken directly from clinical experience: in face of violence and humiliation, victims will turn also on each other. It is for conclusions such as this, and for his other pioneering work in the psychology of ethnic prejudice, that Fanon deserves to be read and remembered. Copyright © 1995-2001 The Economist Newspaper Group Ltd. All rights reserved.
Re: [L-I] Re: Lunatics Liberation Front
Louis Proyect wrote: > > Then why do you get into such fierce debates over topics which require that > you familiarize yourself with lengthy texts? I won't follow this up in any detail, but I'll give a general answer, in two parts. 1. Preliminary: Since then I have read a number of those texts (By Blaut & Brenner in particular). Also I had in the past read quite a bit of medieval European history and of Chinese History. But as I repeatedly tried to tell you, none of this reading was (or is) relevant to the point *I* was arguing. 2. I had read and re-read the relevant texts to what I was arguing: *Capital*, *Grundrisse*, *Poverty of Philosophy*. I wasn't arguing one way or another about the importance of imperialism to capitalism: I simply take it for granted that imperialism is the mode of existence of capitalism, that to argue whether or not imperialism is important to capitalism is like arguing over whether nerves are important to the brain. My concern was the nature of capitalism. What capitalism _is_. And all the stuff you wanted me to read (including Blaut's writings) simply had no relevance to that question. I'm currently re-reading the *Grundrisse* and Ollman's *Alienation*. Both are relevant to the question(s) I'm interested in. As far as I could tell -- I'll come back to this again but not right away -- you and Jim Blaut both had a non-marxist understanding of what capitalism was/is, what its core dynamic is/was. That does *not* mean you and Jim were not marxists and communists. There is in practice always a considerable gap between theory and practice. Jim's utter commitment to the Puerto Rican Revolution was the core of his work -- and that showed through magnificently despite his positivist (and *anti*- marxist) belief expressed in a post a couple years ago that we needed to study relations only because we did not have all the facts. But in fact relations *are* the facts. An isolated fact, or a huge pile of facts, are simply nothing until their internal relations are grasped. But clearly one can devote a whole lifetime of effectively working for the revolution even with a positivist or pragmatic theory, just as there have been those who really grasped the core of marxism and never acted on that recognition. I miss Jim greatly. But he didn't really understand marxism. Carrol > Why did you get in such > pissing contests with me over the Brenner thesis when my contributions to > the discussion numbered over 25 pages? Should I have tried to make my > points in a short e-mail? What a god-damned waste of time. I should have > filtered out your crotchety attempts to read me out of the Marxist > movement, whose boundaries seemed defined by Ellen Meiksins Wood and > Chairman Mao. > > Louis Proyect > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ > > ___ > Leninist-International mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] Re: Lunatics Liberation Front
>My functionality has varied over the years. From early 1998 through >mid-October of last year, for example, I was rarely able to do >any systematic reading of anything much longer than a short e-mail >post. I read only two complete books of any complexity during that >30 months, and can only remember much of one of them. > >Carrol Then why do you get into such fierce debates over topics which require that you familiarize yourself with lengthy texts? Why did you get in such pissing contests with me over the Brenner thesis when my contributions to the discussion numbered over 25 pages? Should I have tried to make my points in a short e-mail? What a god-damned waste of time. I should have filtered out your crotchety attempts to read me out of the Marxist movement, whose boundaries seemed defined by Ellen Meiksins Wood and Chairman Mao. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] Re: Lunatics Liberation Front
Tony Abdo wrote: > Carrol, I don't recall even mentioning your name once in my post. In > fact, I included only myself as having been a 'mental patient'. You > seem rather functional (sane), though utterly lacking in humor at times. > PLUS, Baby Bush is not a 'lunatic'. I just wanted to get this topic (perhaps debate) situated -- and while humor has its place in the development of any topic, it can be misleading as a statement of what the topic is. I will respond later (and in a different tone) to the present post, but for the moment my attention is elsewhere. I've suffered for about 55 years (the first 40 not diagnosed) from intermittently severe clinical depression -- hence my including myself among those named in your original post. I am a member and officer of the local Depressive & Manic Depressive Support Group, hence my fairly wide acquaintance with others suffering from various mental illnesses. My functionality has varied over the years. From early 1998 through mid-October of last year, for example, I was rarely able to do any systematic reading of anything much longer than a short e-mail post. I read only two complete books of any complexity during that 30 months, and can only remember much of one of them. Carrol ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: Lunatics Liberation Front
Carrol wrote Carrol, I don't recall even mentioning your name once in my post. In fact, I included only myself as having been a 'mental patient'. You seem rather functional (sane), though utterly lacking in humor at times. PLUS, Baby Bush is not a 'lunatic'. The main thrust of my post was to state the difference between functionality/ and disfunctionality as being the lines that capitalist society most often defines sanity/ mental illness .You chose not to address this at all. Instead... You state this as utter fact, yet many might disagree with this 'hope' you hold out. This might well be the road to ECT sessions or being jailed in dysfunctional institutes, which you contrast as being preferible to freedom.It might be the path to permanent nerve damage from psychotropic drugs used to control behaviors. Let me state that I completely agree with you that actually 'hearing voices' is a terrible condition to experience. Nevertheless, my humor was directed at the gullibility of the counselling/ judicial bureaucracy that will wisk you away on a dime if it is even so much as suggested that.. voices are to be heard.Yes, two doctors say it is so and off you go.Make that one doctor, Macdonald. Carrol, is it really this unholy alliance that did this horrible crime? I rather thought that reactionary pigs were directing these 'ocurrances'. Institutionalizing or street life? Surely there is another alternative? I hope that the form of my reply has been less 'distasteful'? This is a serious topic and I welcome a serious discussion about it with you. If we talk about it further, we should not confine ourselves to only those that have problems with 'voices'.In reality, many more that come in contact with the 'mental health business' now come by way of counselling, prisons, Down's Syndome, or behavioral 'problems'.Or by way of Dr. Laura. Tony ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] A POEM-"RECIPE FOR MISSILE PIE"
HOPE YOU LIKE IT one ton of anger for making us believe that life would be grander for all of us in need one rotten egg as you changed the shade of red to a darker shade of blue saying labour is now new a multitude of flour in your face,since youve gained power - which seems to be your aim-; take control for selfish gain custard in your eye since you let so many die with your revised n.h.s which really is a mess salt water in a beaker from each assylum seeker who really trusted you to give refuge,so said you a pie in the sky for your words are one big lie and see through sugar paper we have sussed out your caper LADY P BRISTOL FEB 2000 ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] Re: Lunatics Liberation Front
Tony Abdo wrote: > Having accomplished 3 out of 4 of lunacies top honors (psych patent, > Trotskyist **though not Spart**, and psych nurse), I am always > interested in 'lay' comments about what constitutes craziness. > > Macdonald, it goes without saying that it is not 'smart' to enter the ER > of a hospital to talk about what the 'voices' are saying. Actually this is wrong wrong wrong. Those *voices*, in the more usual cases, are telling you that you are worthless, that your friends would be better off without you, and similar cheerful information. And they are very believable . . . .Voices are about as romantic as a very bad migraine headache or a broken hip. They will not go away without help, and if they don't go away you will kill yourself and (in the bargain) do great damage to those who you are closest to. Now I have never heard voices, though a number of my friends have heard and/or are hearing voices. (Nicotine helps, which is why hearing voices can also cause lung cancer.) And while schizophrenia (a neurological *not* a "psychological" condition) is the best know source of this psychotic symptom voices can also be a symptom of depression, of bipolar affective disorder, or of a temporary catch-all, schizoid affective disorder. (By temporary catch-all I mean it is a category which is useful in distinguishing a group of patients who are *not* schizophrenic but who have psychotic symptoms but is probably also an inaccurate category which at some point will be replaced with more accurate diagnoses.) Illinois is probably somewhat better than Texas (and the whole mental illness industry is probably in many ways corrupt), nevertheless the best opportunity a person hearing voices has of ever living a minimally decent life *is* to report those voices to some medical agent and hope. Moreover, due to the unholy alliance in the US between romantic idiots who think schizophrenia is somehow a mystical experience and neoliberals wanting to cut down social expenses mental patients have simply been dumped out onto the streets. I know several in that condition, and it is simply horrible, _for them_. Mental illness is every bit as painful as migraine or stomach cancer and no more romantic than those illnesses. I'm not going further. I'm sure Tony could express his views in a less distasteful form than this post. I will respond if he does so. But this post is simply junk and I have no desire to read the whole of it. I don't think mental illness is funny, and I do not like, even in humor, to be placed in the same category with the president-elect. Carrol I've blind copied this to a friend who may have more to say on the topic. Tony Abdo wrote: > Having accomplished 3 out of 4 of lunacies top honors (psych patent, > Trotskyist **though not Spart**, and psych nurse), I am always > interested in 'lay' comments about what constitutes craziness. > > Macdonald, it goes without saying that it is not 'smart' to enter the ER > of a hospital to talk about what the 'voices' are saying. You CAN do > this in a church if you label the 'voices' as being angels.But do > not call them demons, please. Or mention that they are connected > with the mass communications systems or home entertainment center. > > A socially acceptable way (though expensive) of discussing 'voices' is > to call a psychic hotline 900 number. There, you will find a > sympathetic counsellor. Another thing to do is to simply put the > 'voices' comments to paper and rhyme, or to compose lyrics to a rock > song. > > The difficulty in constructing a Lunatics Liberation Front falls to the > reality that lunatics are never taken very seriously.Lunatics are > rarely either serious are efficient people, while we live in a very > SERIOUS world. Unless they are angry lunatics, when at time they > can become extremely intense individuals, though still usually > inefficient. > > The major barrier between the lunatic and the sane is this lack of > efficiency. A lunatic who becomes efficient is no longer a lunatic, > no matter how seemingly insane. At this point, the individual might > actually become CEO, church, or Trotskyist leadership material.If > they study hard, there are even academic positions available so that > they may instruct others, or merely continue their own studies. > > The arch enemy of lunacy was Calvin (as in Calvin and Hobbes). Your > work supervisor may very well be a Calvinist, since this is the perfect > residence for the sane-- the supervisory post. Those with mental > problems and defects will usually be doing the hard work, though not > very efficiently. This causes constant tension. > > Macdonald, I can definitely imagine the medieval quality of the BC > 'mental health system'.Here in Texas, we try to model ourselves more > on the Mexican system as opposed to the Canadian. We have had some > impressive results. > > What does the future hold for the lunatic? This
Re: [L-I] my participation on L-I
> Mac has subbed me here *involuntarily*. This seems to be a change in Mac's previous > policy of making a virtue out of the crassly petit-bourgeois individualistic method > of letting people decide for themselves. As a good proletarian Soldier Schweik of > our movement, I am of course happy to go where I'm sent (within reason). > Just for you, comrade. I'm still petty-bourgeois at heart. As I indicated previously, I am not as pleased with this list as I was in the past either. However, there is hope and and a recent rededication for this list not to allow the Stalin-Trotsky nonsense to be dominant. We *will* be unsubbing those who persist in it. I say that publicly because it bears repeating. Macdonald Stainsby, co-Moderator Leninist-International list. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Well, what the heck?
In a way, Clinton agrees with us that say it doesn't matter who we, Mr./ Ms. Average Voter, vote for in the US elections. They'll pick who they want. I'm glad that was cleared up. Tony A passing comment from Clinton: the US election was stolen By Kate Randall 13 January 2001 WSWS Speaking on Tuesday in Chicago, Bill Clinton made a remarkable statement for an outgoing president. In an off-the-cuff comment during a speech to Democratic Party supporters he acknowledged that George W. Bush and the Republicans, with the assistance of the US Supreme Court, stole the presidential election. "By the time it was over," Clinton said, "our candidate had won the popular vote, and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida." Speaking to reporters following the event he added that the Democrats "ran the first presidential campaign that was so clearly winning, a court had to stop the vote in order to change the outcome." Clinton's comments warranted only a 30-second clip on a few evening news programs, and have received scant attention in the print media, because he raised an issue that journalists and the political elite would just as soon sweep under the rug. While Clinton may have let the truth slip out, the actual response of the Democrats to the Republicans' political coup has been to submit to it. Indeed, since the Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush the watchwords of the Democratic Party have been bipartisanship and reconciliation. The record of the Clinton administration from Election Day through to the present has been to block any fight against the Republicans' hijacking of the presidency. Clinton remained silent throughout much of the post-election crisis, commenting that democracy and the "rule of law" would win out. The Clinton Justice Department also refused to launch an investigation requested by the NAACP and other organizations into the disenfranchisement of minority voters in Florida. When the Supreme Court called off the vote count in Floridahanding the presidency to BushClinton was one of the first to accept the outcome of the election as legitimate, the product of the democratic process and the Constitution. He invited Bush to the White House to discuss a "smooth" transition to power. No Democratic Senatorincluding the newly elected Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clintonsupported a motion initiated by members of the Congressional Black Caucus objecting to the awarding of Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush. In the spirit of bipartisanship, the Democratic Party leadership has abandoned any challenge to the Florida vote fraud and has no plans to protest the Bush inauguration on January 20. The contradiction between Clinton's acknowledgment that the election was stolen and the response of his administration only underscores the cynicism and cowardice of the Democratic Party and its cavalier attitude towards the basic rights of the American people. This disinterest in fundamental rights, which were won through bitter struggle over many generations, is likewise reflected in Clinton's failure to provide any analysis of what is, by any definition, a crisis of immense proportions. If it is true, as Clinton admits, that his successor is assuming office as a result of the disenfranchisement of millions of voters, how is this to be explained? What does this break with democratic norms indicate about the state of bourgeois democratic institutions in the US? What are the underlying social and class contradictions that have given rise to this unprecedented development? What does the breakdown of democratic procedures say about the nature of the much-vaunted prosperity for which Clinton and Gore are eager to take credit? Does this development not have a connection to the staggering growth of inequality which is, in fact, the major legacy of the Clinton years? These are questions the Democrats and liberal establishment would rather ignore. The half-joking manner in which Clinton made his comments on the election is indicative of the lack of seriousness that dominates the political and media establishment. To raise these issues in such a cynical fashionand then draw no conclusions from them or act upon themreveals not only the attitude of Bill Clinton as an individual but the entire social layer for which he and the Democratic Party speak. This reflects the outlook not of the broad mass of working people, but rather the most privileged layers of the middle class and sections of the ruling class who have little if any commitment to the defense of democratic rights. This is not the first time the Democrats have alluded to such issues, only to bury them. Clinton's statements in Chicago were reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's comments at the onset of the impeachment crisis, when she said that the campaign by the Republican right against Clinton amounted to a "vast right-wing conspiracy." No sooner had she spoken the w
[L-I] Re: Lunatics Liberation Front
Having accomplished 3 out of 4 of lunacies top honors (psych patent, Trotskyist **though not Spart**, and psych nurse), I am always interested in 'lay' comments about what constitutes craziness. Macdonald, it goes without saying that it is not 'smart' to enter the ER of a hospital to talk about what the 'voices' are saying. You CAN do this in a church if you label the 'voices' as being angels.But do not call them demons, please. Or mention that they are connected with the mass communications systems or home entertainment center. A socially acceptable way (though expensive) of discussing 'voices' is to call a psychic hotline 900 number. There, you will find a sympathetic counsellor. Another thing to do is to simply put the 'voices' comments to paper and rhyme, or to compose lyrics to a rock song. The difficulty in constructing a Lunatics Liberation Front falls to the reality that lunatics are never taken very seriously.Lunatics are rarely either serious are efficient people, while we live in a very SERIOUS world. Unless they are angry lunatics, when at time they can become extremely intense individuals, though still usually inefficient. The major barrier between the lunatic and the sane is this lack of efficiency. A lunatic who becomes efficient is no longer a lunatic, no matter how seemingly insane. At this point, the individual might actually become CEO, church, or Trotskyist leadership material.If they study hard, there are even academic positions available so that they may instruct others, or merely continue their own studies. The arch enemy of lunacy was Calvin (as in Calvin and Hobbes). Your work supervisor may very well be a Calvinist, since this is the perfect residence for the sane-- the supervisory post. Those with mental problems and defects will usually be doing the hard work, though not very efficiently. This causes constant tension. Macdonald, I can definitely imagine the medieval quality of the BC 'mental health system'.Here in Texas, we try to model ourselves more on the Mexican system as opposed to the Canadian. We have had some impressive results. What does the future hold for the lunatic? This is surely the question on most humanist minds. With certfied Texas lunatics now holding high federal positions, the future looks good for lunacy. In fact, just the state of Texas alone has many holding cells of lunacy just waiting to be released. This should become fertile ground for the spread of new focos for the Lunatics Liberation Front. In Solidarity, Tony +++ Macdonald wrote... ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.
Yoshie: >Lenin's criticism of Economism (socialism conflated with >trade-unionism) still stands, and if the criticism of Economism is >what Lou means by "centrism," a "swamp," etc., I cannot agree more. I am not sure what you are trying to say. If you are trying to establish connections between Economism and centrism, then we disagree. Economism was a current in the emerging Russian socialist movement that opposed a nation-wide organization. It instead advocated struggles at the plant-gate level around demands that were of immediate interest to the working class. It was an obstacle to the consolidation of a nation-wide Marxist movement. Centrism, by and large, refers to a current *within* Marxism that emerged after 1917 and which occupies a space between the Second International and the Third International. Forces opposed to the creation of a Third International, such as the French Socialist Party and the German Independent Socialist Party, are classic "centrists". Although these types of parties existed throughout the 20s and 30s (they are virtually extinct today in the advanced capitalist countries but occasionally crop up in the third world--the MIR in Allende's Chile might be called a centrist type formation), there was little to distinguish them ideologically from Marxism broadly defined. Economism came to an end at the famous split conference that generated the "What is to be Done" pamphlet. The closest one comes to such a phenomenon today is autonomist Marxism, which makes a fetish of local organizing and eschews challenging the state on a national level. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
FW: [L-I] Program, Organization, Conjuncture
-Original Message- From: Mark Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 13 January 2001 12:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [L-I] Program, Organization, Conjuncture [[typos corrected] > A revolutionary organization with a clear program has yet to come > into being in my corner of the planet. What of yours? In the > absence of a revolutionary party active within a mass movement, into > what should one assimilate? We have to build it, first of all. > > Now, why don't you lay out your analysis of the present conjuncture, > now that you are here? That should be a good point of departure. > Ah, I see you are indeed working on the uroborus principle of circularity. You can't build a party without a theory, and you can't have a theory without first having a party seems to be your position. IMO what you have to do is (a) make some kind of analysis of the global conjuncture; (b) persuade other people of it and (c) organise around it. If you want to know where I think (a) is at, check out the crashlist website and archive. There is a good resume of where (a) is, written by Stan Goff. You have already long ago rejected my version of (a). You still think in terms of socialist construction, social meliorism, bettering the human condition, emancipation, more dignity for labour, worldwide social justice etc. These ideas are completely reactionary in the circumstances, they are a brake on the *revolutionary* movement because they do not address the nature of the historical impasse which capitaism has now dragged humankind into; your ideas are a century out of date and belong with the progressivism of 'storming the heavens' bolshevism and 19th century social optimism generally. What we *ought* to do is confront people with the bitter truth about the fate of biodiversity which exterminist capital has brought us all to. One of the latest and most pitiful incarnations of this idea, which attempts the impossible squaring of eco-doom with social progress circles (impossible even for an uroborus) is the latest effort by Foster to ground Marxism in epicurus. In england you can buy at harrod's an upmarket raspberry jam called Epicurus. I would rather spend my money that way, on the whole. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Program, Organization, Conjuncture
> A revolutionary organization with a clear program has yet to come > into being in my corner of the planet. What of yours? In the > absence of a revolutionary party active within a mass movement, into > what should one assimilate? We have to build it, first of all. > > Now, why don't you lay out your analysis of the present conjuncture, > now that you are here? That should be a good point of departure. > Ah, I see you are indeed working on the uroborus principle of circularity. You can't build a party without a theory, and you can't have a theory without first having a party seems to be your position. IMO what you have to do is (a) make some kind of analysis of the global conjuncture; (b) persuade other people of it and (c) organise around it. If you want to know where I think (a) is at, check out the crashlist website and archive. There is a good resume of where (a) is, written by Stan Goff. You have already long ago rejected my version of (a). You still think in terms of socialist construction, social meliorism, bettering the human condition, emancipation, more dignity for labour, worldwide social justice etc. These ideas are completely reactionary in the circumstances, they are a brake on the *revolutionary* movement because they do not address the nature of the historical impasse which capitaism has now draghged humankind into; your ideas are a century out of date and belong with the progressivism of 'storming the heavens' bolshevism and 19th century social optimism generally. What we *ought* to do is construct people with the bitter truth about the fate of biodiversity which exterminist capital has brought us all to. One of the latest and most pitiful incarnations of this idea, which attempts the impossible squaring of eco-doom with social progress circles (impossible even for an uroborus) is the latest effort by Foster to ground Marxism in epicurus. In england you can buy at harrod's an upmarket raspberry jam called Epicurus. I would rather spend my money that way, on the whole. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] Re: my participation on L-I
> > Fire away. > > Yoshie I'm on the following lists: this, Lou's, deep-eco, wsn and the crashlist. For the past couple of weeks I've been scanning the archives of other lists, and I haven't felt the urge to join or participate in them. I may rejoin Rob's list or perhaps he'll be good enough to do it for me and save me the bother, altho I would prefer not to discuss Bhaskar unless someone can first identify for me the name of one practising and fairly well thought of scientist in any major discipline like physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy etc, or sub-division thereof, who even knows of the existence of Roy Bhaskar let alone thinks him of any worth whatsoever. That's all I'm doing right now and even that is too much. This means, as far as I can see, that unless you contribute to l-i more it is not likely we are going to be discussing anything much. I'm already doing more than I meant to anyway. This does not mean that I do not like to talk with you or don't respect your mind. But I'm not initiating anything right now, so you better unpack your own torpedos (not Russian ones, I hope, which are designed on the uroborus principle). Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] unsuscribe
thanks for being with us, I've put your crashlist sub on hold best wishes Mark venceremos! > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Julio FernandezBaraibar > Sent: 13 January 2001 11:47 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [L-I] unsuscribe > > > Dear and admired comrade Mark: > Life is not so easy here. > I don't have phone line for the last three months, because the fucking > spanish company wants me to pay them a $ 500 bill, which I have not. > Due to this situation, I am forced to receive my emails at the house of > different friends. Of course, this is very annoying, as everybody can > understand. > Anyway I am solving my temporary lack of cash, because some Gods have > remembered me and I begun to work in the official radio station of the > Buenos Aires City. That means that soon I will get enough resources to fix > this financial disagreement between me and the antique colonial power. > Dear Mark and everybody else: My retirement of the list is not only, but > VERY TEMPORARY, in order not to bother my tolerant friends. > In a few weeks, my argentinian voice will be back with a fistfull of truths. > Greetings in the millenium of the socialist revolution. > Julio FB > > > ___ > Leninist-International mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international > ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] unsuscribe
Dear and admired comrade Mark: Life is not so easy here. I don't have phone line for the last three months, because the fucking spanish company wants me to pay them a $ 500 bill, which I have not. Due to this situation, I am forced to receive my emails at the house of different friends. Of course, this is very annoying, as everybody can understand. Anyway I am solving my temporary lack of cash, because some Gods have remembered me and I begun to work in the official radio station of the Buenos Aires City. That means that soon I will get enough resources to fix this financial disagreement between me and the antique colonial power. Dear Mark and everybody else: My retirement of the list is not only, but VERY TEMPORARY, in order not to bother my tolerant friends. In a few weeks, my argentinian voice will be back with a fistfull of truths. Greetings in the millenium of the socialist revolution. Julio FB ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Program, Organization, Conjuncture
>Effacing distinctions in a manner which preserves the >*revolutionary* nature of the >organisation entails submerging pre-existing differences of outlook, >social origin, >location within the division of labour etc, within an *agreed >programme* under the >sign of an *agreed theorisation of the conjuncture*. I see no reason >to suppose, to >judge from her other writings, that such a process of assimilation into a >revolutionary organisation/process, forms any part of Yoshie's >agenda, private or >public. > >Mark A revolutionary organization with a clear program has yet to come into being in my corner of the planet. What of yours? In the absence of a revolutionary party active within a mass movement, into what should one assimilate? We have to build it, first of all. Now, why don't you lay out your analysis of the present conjuncture, now that you are here? That should be a good point of departure. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] 2 sentences from .....
In a message dated 13/01/01 09:54:22 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >from a self-declared and unashamed centrist, but one who desperately > wants > > >to break out of this morass - > > >- Steve Myers. > > Steve, I think it'll be much better for all concerned if you stay right > where you > are. > > Mark - - - - - - - - - - - - In a message dated 13/01/01 09:39:22 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The list seems to have no direction at all > and there is a good deal of hopeless sectarianism and idiotic flaming. This > has got to stop. Question: By juxtaposing these two sentences from Mark, written within minutes of each other, am I proving my own centrist sectarianism and cheap point scoring? Which is going to then set off another round of short egotisitic quips. Whoever invented Marxist E-lists? Probably the God of Sect from Pebo-land. SM ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] Re: my participation on L-I
>Finally, if L-I is to continue at all (I see little point in this >List at present) >it ought to do what it was set up to do, ie, debate revolutionary theory. Fire away. Yoshie ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] (no subject)
Yoshie wrote: >>Lenin's criticism of Economism (socialism conflated with trade-unionism) still stands, and if the criticism of Economism is what Lou means by "centrism," a "swamp," etc., I cannot agree more. I like Lenin's remark on effacing "all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession" in "the organization of revolutionaries" as well.<< Effacing distinctions in a manner which preserves the *revolutionary* nature of the organisation entails submerging pre-existing differences of outlook, social origin, location within the division of labour etc, within an *agreed programme* under the sign of an *agreed theorisation of the conjuncture*. I see no reason to suppose, to judge from her other writings, that such a process of assimilation into a revolutionary organisation/process, forms any part of Yoshie's agenda, private or public. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] (no subject)
> >from a self-declared and unashamed centrist, but one who desperately wants > >to break out of this morass - > >- Steve Myers. Steve, I think it'll be much better for all concerned if you stay right where you are. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] unsuscribe
I hope my goold old cyber-friend Julio Fernandez Baraibar is not really going to be permitted to unsub. Julio, stay at your post! Mark > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Julio FernandezBaraibar > Sent: 13 January 2001 09:39 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [L-I] unsuscribe > > > > > > ___ > Leninist-International mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international > ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] my participation on L-I
Mac has subbed me here *involuntarily*. This seems to be a change in Mac's previous policy of making a virtue out of the crassly petit-bourgeois individualistic method of letting people decide for themselves. As a good proletarian Soldier Schweik of our movement, I am of course happy to go where I'm sent (within reason). His reasons, as supplied to me are, (a) The ends justify the means, and (b) there has to be at least one list where you, Louis and Yoshie all co-exist. I am not sure about co-existing with Yoshie, since she has moved dramatically to the right, on the evidence of postings I have seen of hers to counter-revolutionary fora such as LBO and Pen-l, and what's more she shows clear signs of pomposity. However, I'm prepared to make a go of it despite that. As far as L-I is concerned, I have to honestly say that I am not as proud to be associated with it as I once was, and I frankly think that the present team of moderators (Yoshie Furuhashi (from Japan), Macdonald Stainsby (Canada) and Mine Aysen Doyran (Turkey) ) have made a hash of things. The list seems to have no direction at all and there is a good deal of hopeless sectarianism and idiotic flaming. This has got to stop. In order to avoid all tincture of sectarianism, and to simplify things for me, from now on I will let you know what to think and you will all agree. Clear? Second, all flaming is to be rationalised as follows: the only permissible flames are those which satisfy the concordance of the Medieval Insult Generator. The url for this is: http://www.win.bright.net/%7Eblbeast/medieval/insults.html Finally, if L-I is to continue at all (I see little point in this List at present) it ought to do what it was set up to do, ie, debate revolutionary theory. There ought to be a whole let less flim-flam, crossposting, idiotic news items of the 'from the frontlines' type, and a whole lot less Talin-Srotsky baggage. I hope that's all clear enough. Mark Jones ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
[L-I] unsuscribe
___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
