Please ask the proper authorities to remove me from this list.
Harvey Wheeler
----------
From: Discussions on the writings and lectures of Noam Chomsky on behalf of
Automatic digest processor
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 1997 9:23 PM
To: Recipients of CHOMSKY digests
Subject: CHOMSKY Digest - 3 May 1997 to 4 May 1997
There are 15 messages totalling 1161 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. David Horowitz
2. TITLE: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (3)
3. Maternal care (6)
4. Sociopaths
5. doing it
6. Chomsky: Q & A on Anarchism
7. Digest: THE FATAL FREEDOM
8. The State, oligarcy not conspiracy is the correct word
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 23:48:08 -0500
From: Joe Nix <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: David Horowitz
I have an imagery problem re David Horowitz name appearing on a list for
"Discussions on the writings and lectures of Noam Chomsky".
D. Horowitz is another modern media abomination, a humourless 'talking
head', an 'L.A. Strident' consumer advocate ('American Gothic', Norman
Rockwell portrayal of a farm couple holding a pitchfork?). Another
contributor to my not owning a TV for 10 years.
Is this the same person whose stridency has reached into the causative
factors of genocides?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 02:46:54 EDT
From: Don Brayton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: TITLE: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Mr. DeBar,
I enjoyed your thoughtful response. I would engage you at many points,
for the most part to clarify rather than disagree, but time and my
aversion to easy, sound bitey answers limits me to one or two at a time.
First, you said:
<Good point; for example, who is the "earner" here, the grandson of some
<investor descended from feudal nobility who happens to "own" the firm
<producing widgets, or the person who is slaving away building the damned
<things all day in the same factory his father and mother worked?
You diverted attention slightly from the issue of my focus, that of
exchange between honorable individuals of any heritage to that of
heritage alone. Feudal nobility maintains their position by means of
force and deception except in the rare occasion that they truly establish
and protect the opportunity for all to flourish within their domain. It
is the use of force and deception and those who use it which must be
attacked, not just some stereotyped "nobility" per se. To return to my
point; if a statement in the UDHR is meant to guarantee food, a job,
dignity and so on for everyone whether or not they have earned it,
uninspired humans will gather at the trough to feed and reproduce and
feed and reproduce and feed ... obtaining sustenance they have not
earned and thereby being degraded as self-reliant, responsible life
entities. Self-esteem must be earned ... self-esteem itself can not be
given or forced. Eventually, as those who fill it tire or revolt, the
trough will be emptied and all who have been seduced by the other side of
the altruistic ideal will become very hungry and loud and angry. This is
not a very stable set up. How about espousing the ideal "To each
according to his ability, energy and focus. From each according to his
voluntary willingness to give."
You continue:
>Who should own the largest share of agriculture in the US, the
descendants of >the people who built and worked the farms, or the
descendants of their >"owners"?
Who are the stockholders of Archer Daniels Midland? In part, any of us
who have not consumed all their production and invested some of the
excess in ADM stock. BTW, I do not believe ADM is an honorable company
and above using force to gain advantage over their competition, some of
whom are the small, family farmers you may be including in your "people
who built and worked the farms." ADM is certainly active in lobbying
the federal government for favors and anything the government wants done
is backed by the gun. Again, attack the use of force by detecting,
investigating, trying, convicting and incarcerating those who use it. It
is impractical and self-defeating to attack a stereotyped class of people
or an idea (shades of Don Quixote). But your question is, "who should
own ..." and I would answer, whoever holds such ownership as a goal,
educates himself in the necessary skills, expresses his intention to the
community and his "network," obtains financing, founds the operation and
operates it. The community at large should protect him from coercion and
fraud so that he can flourish. Who should be allowed to be philosophers?
Whoever holds such a professional designation as a goal, educates
himself in the necessary skills (writing) and knowledge (everything),
expresses his intention to the community and his "network" (of peers),
obtains financing (sustains himself with a day job), founds the operation
and operates it. Does it work for you?
I deeply appreciate your attention.
Don Brayton
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 08:30:05 -0300
From: Juan Carlos Garelli <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Maternal care
In a message dated 3 May 97 at 20:44, Harry Veeder says:
> > What I have in mind encompasses the prevention of sociopathy in
> > future generations by providing and ensuring maternal care.
>
> Why is there so much emphasis on "female" care over "male" care?
In attachment theory, the words, mother, maternal, and other
derivatives are not related to sex, gender or even degree of family
relatedness. So, maternal care is a synonym for caregiver care.
Mother is thus a generic term used to designate the attachment figure
who raises the infant. (Mother = caregiver)
Juan Carlos Garelli, M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Early Development
Attachment Research Center
University of Buenos Aires
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 08:32:26 -0300
From: Juan Carlos Garelli <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Sociopaths
In a message dated 3 May 97 at 20:24, [log in to unmask]
says:
> Do sociopaths, as diagnosed in infancy by the test you describe,
> tend to be only children, or first-borns succeeded by a sibling
> within less than a year?
No, that has absolutely nothing to do. It doesn't matter the progeny
order. What matters is the kind of mother-infant relationship. There
are families where all siblings display early tendencies to
anti-social behaviour.
Juan Carlos Garelli, M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Early Development
Attachment Research Center
University of Buenos Aires
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 06:53:36 -0700
From: Ernie Yacub <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: doing it
"Now, a federated, decentralized system of free associations
incorporating economic as well as social institutions would be what I
refer to as anarcho-syndicalism." (chomsky)
i believe that one of the most useful things any of us can do to create
such a new society within the old one is to develop community currency
systems.
the global economic order is fueled by conventional money that is magically
created by banks, and rented out for all kinds of nefarious activities,
such as deforestation, war, and slavery.
consider for a moment the possibility of having an abundant, interest-free,
money supply that comes from the combined efforts of people and business in
community.
anyone can have and use multiple currencies for trading in their
communities (neighborhood, city, region, church, club, etc)...you decide
which currencies you want to use, who you want to trade with, and what
proportion of the transaction is in conventional dollars and which in
"green".
community currencies give local business a competitive advantage over
trans-national corporations (tnc), never leave their community, and keep
moving around the community facilitating interaction and trade.
the most developed form of community currency is the letsystem designed in
1983 by michael linton in the comox valley, where i live. (i now work with
michael developing letsystems)...there are over 1000 lets-like systems in
the world.
we have developed a new strategy for introducing letsystems in any
community...community way (cw) in vancouver, b.c., will raise $2 million
for community service organizations (cso) using an internet-based
letsystem...we propose to reach that goal in 6-10 months, thus putting into
circulation $2 million community way dollars (issued by business) and
generating an equal amount of conventional money for the cso's.
anyone in the world can download free software and design manual to start
their own letsystems from...http://www.gmlets.u-net.com/
for more community way info...http://www.gmlets.u-net.com/go/
in solid
ernie [log in to unmask]
250-336-8155...250-336-2646
community currencies...abundant, interest free money that always comes home.
http://www.gmlets.u-net.com/go/
"The love of (conventional) money is the root of much evil for it corrupts
our communities and lays waste the planet" (ernie yacub)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 15:08:08 GMT
From: Howard Olson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Chomsky: Q & A on Anarchism
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>Noam Chomsky on
> Anarchism
> Tom Lane
> December 23, 1996
>Introduction
>Though Chomsky has written a considerable amount about anarchism in the
>past three decades, people often ask him for a more tangible, detailed
>vision of social change. His political analysis never
>fails to instill outrage and anger with the way the world works, but many
>readers are left uncertain about what exactly Chomsky would do to change
>it. Perhaps because they regard his analytical work with such respect,
>they anticipate he will lay out his goals and strategy with similar
>precision and clarity, only to be disappointed with his generalized
>statements of libertarian socialist values. Or perhaps many look to a
>great intellectual to provide a "master plan" for them to follow
>step-by-step into a bright shining future.
>Yet Chomsky shys away from such pronouncements. He cautions that it is
>difficult to predict what particular forms a more just social organization
>will take, or even to know for sure what alternatives to the current
>system are ideal. Only experience can show us the best answers to these
>questions, he says. What should guide us along the way are a general set
>of principles which will underly whatever specific forms our future
>society will take. For Chomsky, those principles arise from the historical
>trend of thought and action known as anarchism.
>Chomsky warns that little can be said about anarchism on a very general
>level. "I haven't tried to write anything systematic about these topics,
>nor do I know of anything by others that I could recommend," he wrote to
>me in reply to a set of questions on the subject. He's written here and
>there about it, notably in the recent Powers and Prospects, but there just
>isn't a lot to say in general terms. "The interest lies in the
>applications," he thinks, "but these are specific to time and place.
>"In Latin America," Chomsky says, "I talked about many of these topics,
>and far more important, learned about them from people who are actually
>doing things, a good deal of which had an anarchist flavor. Also had a
>chance to meet with lively and interesting groups of anarchists, from
>Buenos Aires to Belem at the mouth of the Amazon (the latter I didn't know
>about at all -- amazing where our friends show up). But the discussions
>were much more focused and specific than I often see here; and rightly, I
>think."
>As such, Chomsky's responses to these questions are general and terse.
>However, as a brief introduction to some of his thoughts on anarchism,
>perhaps they may inspire the reader to pursue other writings on the
>subject (a list appears at the end of the questions), and more
>importantly, to develop the concept of anarchism through the process of
>working for revolutionary social change.
>Tom Lane
>Answers from Chomsky to eight questions on anarchism
>General comment on all the questions:
>No one owns the term "anarchism." It is used for a wide range of different
>currents of thought and action, varying widely. There are many self-styled
>anarchists who insist, often with great passion, that theirs is the only
>right way, and that others do not merit the term (and maybe are criminals
>of one or another sort). A look at the contemporary anarchist literature,
>particularly in the West and in intellectual circles (they may not like
>the term), will quickly show that a large part of it is denunciation of
>others for their deviations, rather as in the Marxist-Leninist sectarian
>literature. The ratio of such material to constructive work is
>depressingly high.
>Personally, I have no confidence in my own views about the "right way,"
>and am unimpressed with the confident pronouncements of others, including
>good friends. I feel that far too little is understood to be able to say
>very much with any confidence. We can try to formulate our long-term
>visions, our goals, our ideals; and we can (and should) dedicate ourselves
>to working on issues of human significance. But the gap between the two is
>often considerable, and I rarely see any way to bridge it except at a very
>vague and general level. These qualities of mine (perhaps defects, perhaps
>not) will show up in the (very brief) responses I will make to your
>questions.
>1. What are the intellectual roots of anarchist thought, and what
>movements have developed and animated it throughout history?
>The currents of anarchist thought that interest me (there are many) have
>their roots, I think, in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and
>even trace back in interesting ways to the scientific revolution of the
>17th century, including aspects that are often considered reactionary,
>like Cartesian rationalism. There's literature on the topic (historian of
>ideas Harry Bracken, for one; I've written about it too). Won't try to
>recapitulate here, except to say that I tend to agree with the important
>anarchosyndicalist writer and activist Rudolf Rocker that classical
>liberal ideas were wrecked on the shoals of industrial capitalism, never
>to recover (I'm referring to Rocker in the 1930s; decades later, he
>thought differently). The ideas have been reinvented continually; in my
>opinion, because they reflect real human needs and perceptions. The
>Spanish Civil War is perhaps the most important case, though we should
>recall that the anarchist revolution that swept over a good part of Spain
>in 1936, taking various forms, was not a spontaneous upsurge, but had been
>prepared in many decades of education, organization, struggle, defeat, and
>sometimes victories. It was very significant. Sufficiently so as to call
>down the wrath of every major power system: Stalinism, fascism, western
>liberalism, most intellectual currents and their doctrinal institutions --
>all combined to condemn and destroy the anarchist revolution, as they did;
>a sign of its significance, in my opinion.
>2. Critics complain that anarchism is "formless, utopian." You counter
>that each stage of history has its own forms of authority and oppression
>which must be challenged, therefore no fixed doctrine can apply. In your
>opinion, what specific realization of anarchism is appropriate in this
>epoch?
>I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though hardly more
>so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other
>ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and their intellectual
>servants over the years, for reasons that are all too easy to explain.
>The reason for the general formlessness and intellectual vacuity (often
>disguised in big words, but that is again in the self-interest of
>intellectuals) is that we do not understand very much about complex
>systems, such as human societies; and have only intuitions of limited
>validity as to the ways they should be reshaped and constructed.
>Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of
>proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are
>necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that
>conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend
>should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate
>authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.
>In the present period, the issues arise across the board, as they commonly
>do: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the
>international political/economic order. And anarchist ideas -- challenging
>authority and insisting that it justify itself -- are appropriate at all
>levels.
>3. What sort of conception of human nature is anarchism predicated on?
>Would people have less incentive to work in an egalitarian society? Would
>an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? Would
>democratic decision-making result in excessive conflict, indecision and
>"mob rule"?
>As I understand the term "anarchism," it is based on the hope (in our
>state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that) that core elements of human
>nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern
>for others, and so on.
>Would people work less in an egalitarian society? Yes, insofar as they are
>driven to work by the need for survival; or by material reward, a kind of
>pathology, I believe, like the kind of pathology that leads some to take
>pleasure from torturing others. Those who find reasonable the classical
>liberal doctrine that the impulse to engage in creative work is at the
>core of human nature -- something we see constantly, I think, from
>children to the elderly, when circumstances allow -- will be very
>suspicious of these doctrines, which are highly serviceable to power and
>authority, but seem to have no other merits.
>Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? We
>don't know. If so, then forms of social organization would have to be
>constructed -- there are many possibilities -- to overcome this crime.
>What would be the consequences of democratic decision-making? The answers
>are unknown. We would have to learn by trial. Let's try it and find out.
>4. Anarchism is sometimes called libertarian socialism -- How does it
>differ from other ideologies that are often associated with socialism,
>such as Leninism?
>Leninist doctrine holds that a vanguard Party should assume state power
>and drive the population to economic development, and, by some miracle
>that is unexplained, to freedom and justice. It is an ideology that
>naturally appeals greatly to the radical intelligentsia, to whom it
>affords a justification for their role as state managers. I can't see any
>reason -- either in logic or history -- to take it seriously. Libertarian
>socialism (including a substantial mainstream of Marxism) dismissed all of
>this with contempt, quite rightly.
>5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do
>what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others.
>Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?
>Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever
>implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few
>counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that
>its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they
>would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea
>of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a
>sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the
>consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.
>I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with
>people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of
>issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And
>I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I
>do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or
>their profound moral failings.
>6. How do anarchist principles apply to education? Are grades,
>requirements and exams good things? What sort of environment is most
>conducive to free thought and intellectual development?
>My feeling, based in part on personal experience in this case, is that a
>decent education should seek to provide a thread along which a person will
>travel in his or her own way; good teaching is more a matter of providing
>water for a plant, to enable it to grow under its own powers, than of
>filling a vessel with water (highly unoriginal thoughts I should add,
>paraphrased from writings of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism).
>These are general principles, which I think are generally valid. How they
>apply in particular circumstances has to be evaluated case by case, with
>due humility, and recognition of how little we really understand.
>7. Depict, if you can, how an ideal anarchist society would function
>day-to-day. What sorts of economic and political institutions would exist,
>and how would they function? Would we have money? Would we shop in stores?
>Would we own our own homes? Would we have laws? How would we prevent
>crime?
>I wouldn't dream of trying to do this. These are matters about which we
>have to learn, by struggle and experiment.
>8. What are the prospects for realizing anarchism in our society? What
>steps should we take?
>Prospects for freedom and justice are limitless. The steps we should take
>depend on what we are trying to achieve. There are, and can be, no general
>answers. The questions are wrongly put. I am reminded of a nice slogan of
>the rural workers' movement in Brazil (from which I have just returned):
>they say that they must expand the floor of the cage, until the point when
>they can break the bars. At times, that even requires defense of the cage
>against even worse predators outside: defense of illegitimate state power
>against predatory private tyranny in the United States today, for example,
>a point that should be obvious to any person committed to justice and
>freedom -- anyone, for example, who thinks that children should have food
>to eat -- but that seems difficult for many people who regard themselves
>as libertarians and anarchists to comprehend. That is one of
>the self-destructive and irrational impulses of decent people who consider
>themselves to be on the left, in my opinion, separating them in practice
>from the lives and legitimate aspirations of suffering people.
>So it seems to me. I'm happy to discuss the point, and listen to
>counter-argument, but only in a context that allows us to go beyond
>shouting of slogans -- which, I'm afraid, excludes a good deal of what
>passes for debate on the left, more's the pity.
>----------------------------------------
>Dan Clore
>mailto:[log in to unmask]
>The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
>Welcome to the Waughters....
>The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
>Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
>"Hziulquoigmnzhah" ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>> Iqhui dlosh odhqlonqh!
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
I apologize for the long quote but I did not want to accidentally
take any of Chomsky out of context. I also wanted to credit the source
fully.
I think this speaks for itself and is highly relevant to this group
annd the Chomsky List.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 12:50:52 -0400
From: Harry Veeder <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Maternal care
Okay, thanks.
Harry
On Sun, 4 May 1997, Juan Carlos Garelli wrote:
> > Why is there so much emphasis on "female" care over "male" care?
>
> In attachment theory, the words, mother, maternal, and other
> derivatives are not related to sex, gender or even degree of family
> relatedness. So, maternal care is a synonym for caregiver care.
> Mother is thus a generic term used to designate the attachment figure
> who raises the infant. (Mother = caregiver)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 07:06:09 -1000
From: "Jay Hanson mailto:[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Digest: THE FATAL FREEDOM
Michael Coghlan wrote:
> overemphasized. We ignore other, more compelling evidence,
> overemphasizing and overgeneralizing from the information
> close at hand to produce a rough-and-ready realty."
>
>So if the die is so cast, should we aspire to anything else? Can we indeed
be anything else?
We can overcome much of our innate inability to make "rational"
decisions by utilizing social organization -- institutions.
As merely a large number of individual animals, there is
absolutely NO WAY for humanity to avoid the not-far-distant
crash and die off. Humanity MUST invent new humaine,
cybernetic institutions to lead the human herd out of its
dead end.
---------------------------------------------------------
Don DeBar wrote:
>Cool with the footnotes going directly to links. Really didn't need to
>footnote "objective". I agree that it is necessary to put our resources to
It may seem silly to define "objective", but when discussing
"objective measures" of human welfare with economists, they
first insist that "objective" is defined as: "Uninfluenced
by emotions or personal prejudices." Then they proudly proclaim
that no such "objective measures" exist.
Economists are trained to transmogrify questions that might
cause them to question assumptions, and then answer the new
uestions instead!
"His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete
truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold
simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to
be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic
against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it,
to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was
the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary
to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment
when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and
above all, to apply the same process to the process itself --
that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce
unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of
the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand
the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
-- George Orwell, 1984
>bargain freely, etc., etc.) And what is with your aversion to naming the
>beast? Capitalism, not "neo-classical economics" or any other pseudonym.
I am trying to "personalize" the problem. I am sure you agree
that although Americans vote on "overt politics" every two years,
"covert politics" (economic theory) never appears on anyone's
ballots.
I am pointing out that the high priests of "covert politics"
are the neoclassical economists themselves. Class politics
is so completely integrated into their education, thought,
and language that it becomes unconscious.
Every time an economist talks to the Chamber of Commerce,
Rotary Club, or appears on TV, they are serving as cheerleader
for covert politics.
The economist's message certainly is political and
controversial, perhaps someone should sue for equal time.
(That's what got cigarette advertising removed from TV.)
"Economics is politics in disguise." -- Henderson
---------------------------------------------------------
Harry Veeder wrote:
>Any measure of human welfare is subjective, because it presupposes a
>social end which are always arrived at politically. You can only speak of
First, I define "objective" as: "Of or having to do with a
material object." With MY definition (see above), there are
indeed "objective" measures of human welfare.
For example, medical doctors routinely use many "objective
measures" of human welfare: temperature, BP, cholesterol levels,
x rays, tissue samples, etc. Thus, when a patient's fever has
been lowered by aspirin, a doctor (unlike economists) have a
"objective" reason to claim that aspirin made the patient
"better off".
The doctor's "objective measure" is the temperature of the
patient and anyone who can operate a thermometer can audit
the doctor. There are also several "objective measures" for
society as a whole (e.g., global warming, falling water tables,
statistics on unemployment, education, leisure time, consumption,
etc.)
First experts must identify "objective measures" of human welfare,
then politics must decide WHICH objective measures are important
for society.
For a nice chart on human welfare, see:
http://www.dieoff.org/page16.htm
To read about the Genuine Progress INdicator, see:
http://www.dieoff.org/page11.htm
Jay -- www.dieoff.org
-------------------------------------------
Pluto (pluoo-toe) noun
1. Roman Mythology. The god of the dead
and the ruler of the underworld.
2. American politics. The family of
corporations that bought America's
political system.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 11:14:41 -0700
From: Tresy Kilbourne <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: TITLE: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Don Brayton, wrote:
>To return to my
>point; if a statement in the UDHR is meant to guarantee food, a job,
>dignity and so on for everyone whether or not they have earned it,
>uninspired humans will gather at the trough to feed and reproduce and
>feed and reproduce and feed ... obtaining sustenance they have not
>earned and thereby being degraded as self-reliant, responsible life
>entities. Self-esteem must be earned ... self-esteem itself can not be
>given or forced.
Is your point that grinding poverty is ennobling? If so, the most
psychologically healthy societies should be El Salvador, Peru, etc.
Actually I can see an area where this principle might indeed be justly
employed. Most wealth in this country is inherited, which means that the
inheritor did NOTHING to earn it. Moveover, we can see the pernicious
effects of letting heirs keep this wealth in the examples of the Royal
Family, Donald Trump, the Johnson and Johnson family, etc. Why not levy
an inheritance tax of 100% on this unearned wealth and ennoble these
self-esteem-lacking individuals? Or is your argument that poverty
ennobles *poor* people only? Self-esteem for thee, but not for me?
Your argument assumes that US democracy is currently formal only,
otherwise there would be no need to argue this hypothetical, since the
current distribution of power and privilege would represent the
democratic will of the people. With this assumption I agree. Your
argument then seems to be that participatory democracy would be dangerous
in that we would unleash massive irresponsibility, so it's preferable to
have the purely plebiscitary one we have now, where decisions are made by
"producers" (defined tautologically as anyone with disproportionate
wealth), which the rest of us get to ratify. Is that your position? If
not, what part am I missing?
The argument that, given access to the national bank account, the masses
would promptly bankrupt it, is not new. Karl Marx, FYI, said it well
before Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand. The problem with that argument is
that, during the 80s, the national bank account was clearly in the hands
of the "producers", and THEY bankrupted it. Now we are applauding the
gov't for reaching fiscal solvency--how? By finding 99% of the savings in
programs benefiting the poor, while dishing out capital gains tax
"relief" to the folks who created the deficit in the first place. As
Bertolt Brecht said,
Those who take bread from our mouths
Preach self-restraint...
Those who lead the country off the cliff
Call ruling too difficult
For ordinary men.
y'r obdt. Svt.,
Tresy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 15:14:30 -0400
From: Peter Stone <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: TITLE: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Cool quote. It reminds me of the Milton quote prefacing _Manufacturing
Consent_ (The film): "Those who have put out men's eyes reproach them for
their blindness."
Where's the Brecht quote from?
Peter Stone
[log in to unmask]
> Bertolt Brecht said,
>
> Those who take bread from our mouths
> Preach self-restraint...
> Those who lead the country off the cliff
> Call ruling too difficult
> For ordinary men.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 13:24:31 -0700
From: Matthew Levy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The State, oligarcy not conspiracy is the correct word
With regards to the interesting but somewhat unclear discussion of the
relationship of State to "economy" and the idea of social anarchy ...
It is interesting to note that the idea that capitalist production is or
should be "anarchic", i.e. that the market will and ought to regulate
itself, is not really present in the foundational theories of capitalist
economics ... it emerges later as a reaction to socialism and Marxism on
the part of capitalist apologists. Adam Smith, for instance, believed
that governments ought not to interfere too heavily in the workings of the
market not because the market was its own end, but because by doing so
they could make the market serve the ends of government. Politics was
always the real game, and there was no notion that markets could somehow
exist in a vacuum to serve the greater interests of humanity. Markets had
their own functional logic, to be sure, and heavy-handed and arbitrary
intervention could only impede that, but when the functioning of the
market interfered with the ends of politics, it was only reasonable,
according to Smith, for politics to take precedence.
Thus the framers of the American constitution, for instance, gave
Congress the power to regulate commerce ... even at the expense of
individual economic liberty. The discussion of banks in your earlier
post is interesting in light of the fact that "democratic" banking
practices were the first to go under the new constitutional regime ...
under the John Marshall court, the federal government (orchestrated by
Alexander Hamilton) established the right of Congress to protect the Bank
of the United States at the expense of local and state banks ... the
interest to be preserved here was not ann "anarchic" or otherwise "free"
marketplace, but a deliberately integrated interstate economy which would
serve the interests of the national government.
The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how powerful
international capital becomes in the world, the financial organization of
property ALWAYS depends on the protection of political power for its
existence. The idea that somehow markets are beyond or above politics is
simply an ideological product of the bourgeois reaction to communism,
nationalism, democractic socialism, and any other attempt to use the
organs of politics to protect any set of interests other than those of the
class which owns property. One need not be a Marxist or even a liberal
sympathizer to understand that the functioning of economy is always
dependent upon political power and thus never "anarchist" in the sense
that I understand that word.
That being said, it is true that we live in a world where the
international economy has become so complex that it is very difficult for
national governments (many of which are in serious financial debt to
international finance) to act in any independent and effective way.
Increasing "economic growth" has become such a powerful motivating force
that it is almost the only aim of government ... and since this growth
seems to require working within, rather than against, the international
financial system, we see a general trend towards "market-based" politics
around the world, even in ostensibly state-centered economies like China
... I think much of this impression, however, is just the result of
post-cold-war misunderstandings of the international system ... the fall
of "Communism" has convinced many that free market capitalism is an
inherently, objectively "superior" system even though the most successful
states in the present system ... the fast-growing east asian economies
... are using essentially mercantilist policies, with heavy state
intervention and careful, close cooperation between the trade policies of
governments and the particular interests of key industries and
oligopolistic corporations. Anybody who calls this market "free" is
smoking too much crack (bought on the black market, shipped in by the CIA,
produced and marketed by latin american guerrilla/gangsters, protected
by arms originally provided by the international communist conspiracy, etc
....)
peace,
m@2
"You're not really in love with yourself - you're just in love with the
idea of being in love with yourself"
- said to me by one of the two little fellas who hang out on
either of my shoulders ... I can't remember which ...
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 14:07:26 -0700
From: Matthew Levy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Maternal care
There has been much discussion on this list recently on the
related issues of political psychopathology and childcare. Much of this
seems to be prompted by Dr. Garelli's original comment that many of our
political problems are attributable to the pathological character of
politicians, and the suggestion that we can do away with such problems by
having mental health care professionals monitor our elected (or unelected)
officials, and by introducing new methods of childrearing. This
discussion is rooted in a general Chomskian concern for having a free,
anti-authoritarian society, but does not seem to engage the ideas of
thinkers in the fields of psychopathology and child development (except
for oblique references to how things have been going downhill since the
sixties).
Given this last comment, I know I am likely to be shouted down
when I make reference to someone as unpopular in Chomskian circles as
Michel Foucault, but I think the reference is an important one.
Foucault's writings on subjects like madness, punishment, and sexuality
make it absolutely clear how difficult it is to do away with the problems
of politics through "science". It is naive to think that whereas
politicians are wrongheaded, psychologists are inherently truthful,
scientific, and healthy, and capable of curing the ills of our society.
The definition of a word like "sociopath" is a product of the power
relations of our society, and therapists or other mental researchers
cannot claim to be above this society and its power relations.
One need not really even read Foucault to
accept this, anyway ... just think about the real implications of
Chomsky's work. The ideals behind the Universal Grammar understanding of
human intelligence says that we are all essentially equal. Our moral and
emotional needs may be quite different, and it is certainly possible that
some of us are, for a variety of reasons, "screwed up". But
essentially, we are all the same in our ability to think and to
communicate. Given this, talking about "the best minds" seems
offensively elitist.
As someone else pointed out earlier, it is dangerous to create
political solutions which rely on the elimination of human weakness ...
we need to create better institutions that can function WITH laziness,
selfishness, even deception, rather than waiting for a utopia where only
perfect citizens exist, or trying to weed out the "bad eggs" in some kind
of Freudian-Stalinist psycho-purge. Of course we want those in
positions of authority to be open, democratic, responsive to the needs
of society, and unselfish ... but I do not believe we can acheive that by
surrendering our own judgement as individual citizens to the judgement
of an elite set of psychologists. Anyway, I truly believe that
"pathology" is an essentially useless concept in mental investigation; we
ALL have our self-deceptions, our hang-ups, our twisted addictions and
fixations, etc. ... I feel I am a pretty goddamn neurotic person. The
difference between me and those who are in power, however, lies in the
fact that I am willing to be open about my problems and to try to deal
with them in such a way as not to inflict them on those around me.
In the present state of image-based pseudo-democracy, the power-twisted
psychology of those who rule is hidden behind a carefully constructed
illusion of rational competence ... but in the reform proposed by Dr.
Garelli, this would only get WORSE, as the defects of the political
regime would become further hidden behind the scientificized judgements
of (probably state-supported) mental health care professionals, whose own
power-interests would be carefully concealed from public scrutiny and
criticism by the white coat of the "expert".
So I think what we REALLY need is to each be our own politician,
our own psychologist, our own person ... this is the only way to have a
free and open, anarchistic society, and I do not think this interest is
well-served by putting the power into the hands of a few (admittedly
activist and concerned) scientists to make the distinction between sane
and insane, citizen and outcast, truth and falsehood. My vision means
letting everybody admit to their hangups and "let it all hang out" ...
only then can we really get some democratic discussion going on ...
And on the subject of child-rearing, while I am at it, let me
also say that perhaps what we really need is more concern for what the
CHILD wants ... Freudians have been telling us for years how repression is
necessary for the creation of a healthy ego, but in light of what I have
been saying, this is highly suspect. Given Chomsky's finding that we all
have the ability to rationally and creatively communicate our needs and
wants with one another from an early age ... and thus to rationally
justify and negotiate our relations with others ... traditional claims
that childrearing is about correct "managing" of the child by the parent
(whether mother or father) seem insidious. Perhaps the best way to deal
with children is simply to reason with them ... this stands against
much common wisdom, but I think we must question how much of that wisdom
is really about the good of the child and how much is about the
convenience of the parent and of the existing political and social order
... the vision Chomsky gives us of a free society seems to me to be
less about meeting psychoanalytic conceptions of "health" than about
learning to respect one another as rational, conscientious beings ... and
this goes for small children as well as big politicians.
peace,
m@2
"You're not really in love with yourself - you're just in love with the
idea of being in love with yourself"
- said to me by one of the two little fellas who hang out on
either of my shoulders ... I can't remember which ...
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 19:01:25 -0300
From: Juan Carlos Garelli <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Maternal care
In a message dated 4 May 97 at 14:07, Matthew Levy says:
> There has been much discussion on this list recently on
> the
> related issues of political psychopathology and childcare. Much of
> this seems to be prompted by Dr. Garelli's original comment that
> many of our political problems are attributable to the pathological
> character of politicians, and the suggestion that we can do away
> with such problems by having mental health care professionals
> monitor our elected (or unelected) officials, and by introducing
> new methods of childrearing.
I never said such a thing. Moreover, I asserted that current
political sociopaths are irredeemable, and that nothing can be done
to redress this situation.
What I did say is that there are ways to early detection of
psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies in infants and preschoolers
and that psychiatric intervention in those cases might prevent
anti-social developments.
It couldn't be further from the truth to assert I ever mentioned
introducing new methods of childrearing. I only talked about
enhancing maternal care in a frivolous world where children are
reared by maids and au pair girls.
If this is the biased, foul way the work of Attachment Theorists is
going to be construed, I will refrain from posting anything else on
the issue in future.
Juan Carlos Garelli, M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Early Development
Attachment Research Center
University of Buenos Aires
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 16:16:17 -0700
From: Matthew Levy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Maternal care
On Sun, 4 May 1997, Juan Carlos Garelli wrote:
> In a message dated 4 May 97 at 14:07, Matthew Levy says:
>
> > There has been much discussion on this list recently on
> > the
> > related issues of political psychopathology and childcare. Much of
> > this seems to be prompted by Dr. Garelli's original comment that
> > many of our political problems are attributable to the pathological
> > character of politicians, and the suggestion that we can do away
> > with such problems by having mental health care professionals
> > monitor our elected (or unelected) officials, and by introducing
> > new methods of childrearing.
>
> I never said such a thing. Moreover, I asserted that current
> political sociopaths are irredeemable, and that nothing can be done
> to redress this situation.
>
> What I did say is that there are ways to early detection of
> psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies in infants and preschoolers
> and that psychiatric intervention in those cases might prevent
> anti-social developments.
>
> It couldn't be further from the truth to assert I ever mentioned
> introducing new methods of childrearing. I only talked about
> enhancing maternal care in a frivolous world where children are
> reared by maids and au pair girls.
>
> If this is the biased, foul way the work of Attachment Theorists is
> going to be construed, I will refrain from posting anything else on
> the issue in future.
>
> Juan Carlos Garelli, M.D., Ph.D.
> Department of Early Development
> Attachment Research Center
> University of Buenos Aires
Now hang on a second before you fly off the handle. I may have made
mistakes in attributing certain comments to you which were made by others,
as the intricate weave of responses to responses to responses can on
occasion become confusing with regards to who said what. If so I
apologize, for such misattribution was unintentional.
However, your response seems confusing to me in several respects.
You do not seem to actually dispute the substance of my remarks, rather
you seem to be annoyed by the "spin" or tone which I gave to them. Yes,
the way I have presented "attachment theory" is biased ... I am openly
hostile to much of the work that is done in this and
other post-psychoanalytic fields, and never claimed not to be. I have a
right to be critical, and I have a right to make postings to a list such
as this suggesting that such research and such theories are not the
end-all be-all of psychological investigation, and furthermore to
suggest that they are incompatible with what I see as the general moral
and ethical framework of Chomsky's psychology and politics. If you
think I am wrong, then it behooves you to tell me specifically WHY I am
wrong, rather than simply calling my comments "foul" and refusing to
have a discussion.
I don't know how to construe the proposition that psychiatrists
can monitor and "intervene" in the anti-social development of children
other than as a call for monitoring of social norms by a professional
elite, and I don't know how to understand the general connection you
have made between sociopathology and political corruption other than as
the suggestion that the way to reform politics is through curing the
mental illness of its individual members. Furthermore, I don't know
what exactly you mean by "enhancing maternal care", other than a general
suggestion that you as a mental health expert have some special insight
into childrearing that is not held by the general public. I suppose it
was careless and sloppy of me to accuse you of "introducing" new ideas;
I now understand more clearly that you want to simply "return" to
"natural" childrearing, where birth mothers (or fathers) take care of
their children instead of the current "frivolous" state of affairs which
is dominated by maids and au pair girls (though "in whose social class?"
would be a good question to ask here). I think your motives in such an
assertion are probably well-founded, but you should think about the larger
discursive context of what you say ... Rousseau, for instance, was a great
proponent, for essentially admirable philosophical and psychological
reasons, of the idea that breastfeeding by one's biological mother would
cure many of the ills of society ... an idea which had a profound
influence on childrearing practices in France and elsewhere and led to a
variety of odious ideas about the "place" of women which can be found in
fascist propaganda and modern-day "family-values" rhetoric, among other
places. Please understand that I am not making unfounded accusations
about the motivations of your statements ... I believe you are genuinely
good-hearted and really care about improving the health of our society.
What I am asking you to consider is the possible effects of your
statements ... I still maintain that if we think through the
psychological position that you espouse, we will arrive at an essentially
(though subtlely) undemocratic attitude where reified social norms about
what is "healthy" and "unhealthy" are defended by an entrenched
professional elite which justifies itself through "science" and dismisses
outside criticism. I eagerly and vociferously encourage you to prove me
wrong.
peace,
m@2
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 19:56:43 -0400
From: DDeBar <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Maternal care
>
> Now hang on a second before you fly off the handle. I may have made
> mistakes in attributing certain comments to you which were made by
others,
> as the intricate weave of responses to responses to responses can on
> occasion become confusing with regards to who said what. If so I
> apologize, for such misattribution was unintentional.
I'm not sure, Matthew, but I think you did this to me, too. I wasn't the
one who advocated taking charge of the banking system, I merely pointed out
Marx's comments about this in re: the Paris Commune, that is, that the
Commune should have done so. I actually agree with most of what you posted
in your "reply" to me.
> However, your response seems confusing to me in several respects.
> You do not seem to actually dispute the substance of my remarks, rather
> you seem to be annoyed by the "spin" or tone which I gave to them. Yes,
> the way I have presented "attachment theory" is biased ... I am openly
> hostile to much of the work that is done in this and
> other post-psychoanalytic fields, and never claimed not to be. I have a
> right to be critical, and I have a right to make postings to a list such
> as this suggesting that such research and such theories are not the
> end-all be-all of psychological investigation, and furthermore to
> suggest that they are incompatible with what I see as the general moral
> and ethical framework of Chomsky's psychology and politics. If you
> think I am wrong, then it behooves you to tell me specifically WHY I am
> wrong, rather than simply calling my comments "foul" and refusing to
> have a discussion.
>
> I don't know how to construe the proposition that
psychiatrists
> can monitor and "intervene" in the anti-social development of children
> other than as a call for monitoring of social norms by a professional
> elite, and I don't know how to understand the general connection you
> have made between sociopathology and political corruption other than
as
> the suggestion that the way to reform politics is through curing the
> mental illness of its individual members. Furthermore, I don't know
> what exactly you mean by "enhancing maternal care", other than a general
> suggestion that you as a mental health expert have some special insight
> into childrearing that is not held by the general public. I suppose it
> was careless and sloppy of me to accuse you of "introducing" new ideas;
> I now understand more clearly that you want to simply "return" to
> "natural" childrearing, where birth mothers (or fathers) take care of
> their children instead of the current "frivolous" state of affairs which
> is dominated by maids and au pair girls (though "in whose social class?"
> would be a good question to ask here). I think your motives in such an
> assertion are probably well-founded, but you should think about the
larger
> discursive context of what you say ... Rousseau, for instance, was a
great
> proponent, for essentially admirable philosophical and psychological
> reasons, of the idea that breastfeeding by one's biological mother would
> cure many of the ills of society ... an idea which had a profound
> influence on childrearing practices in France and elsewhere and led to a
> variety of odious ideas about the "place" of women which can be found in
> fascist propaganda and modern-day "family-values" rhetoric, among other
> places. Please understand that I am not making unfounded accusations
> about the motivations of your statements ... I believe you are genuinely
> good-hearted and really care about improving the health of our society.
> What I am asking you to consider is the possible effects of your
> statements ... I still maintain that if we think through the
> psychological position that you espouse, we will arrive at an essentially
> (though subtlely) undemocratic attitude where reified social norms about
> what is "healthy" and "unhealthy" are defended by an entrenched
> professional elite which justifies itself through "science" and dismisses
> outside criticism. I eagerly and vociferously encourage you to prove me
> wrong.
To Juan Carlos:
I'm not sure yet if I understand exactly what you are advocating either, so
I haven't really address it yet. However, my limited understanding of it is
that you believe that mentally-healthy leadership, acquired in some
fashion, will lead better and less destructively. My knee-jerk reaction to
this is that it is difficult to see how this can happen. If people in
positions of leadership have interests that oppose the interests of the
majority, then a "healthy" appraisal of the situation would allow them to
discover what they had to do to retain their position(s), at the expense of
the majority. If instead you are advocating that these people (without
substantial change in the laws of inheritance we are talking about the
children of the existing elites) be socialized so that they will act
against their own class interests for the common good, I don't think many
of their parents are going to be bringing them to register at this
school...
- Don DeBar
> peace,
> m@2
------------------------------
End of CHOMSKY Digest - 3 May 1997 to 4 May 1997
************************************************
|
