OK, folks.... I have to admit I got carried away by my free-associations
on psychiatry in the 19th century. It's time for me to get into
Bill Clinton mode and do some "damage containment" before this
day's unlucky [Kenneth] star[r]s get me.
There can be little question that, if Karl Marx had truly "gone
nuts", the chances of anything helpful happening to him would likely
have been small to none, unless Engels was a greater man than
I would guess, or unless someone familiar with Marx's biography
can find a rabbit in a hat.
So what should we make of Das Kapital, on the *hypothesis* that
Marx was a lunatic (which he probably was not)? I think in
that case, Das Kapital would constitute another of those rare
but remarkable documents which comprise the still little known
archipelago of the rare voices of madness which spoke truth
and which, in recent years, are slowly being recovered. These
documents are, in a way, probably historically inconsequential,
since they did not change history. But they may be inspirations for
us nonetheless. The book to start with is (again, citing
amazon.com:):
> The Seduction of Madness[, by Edward M. Podvoll, M.D.]
> Availability: This title is out of print, but if you
> place an order we may be able to find you a used
> copy within 1-3 months.
>
> Published by Harperperennial Library
> Publication date: August 1991
> ISBN: 0060160292
Just as Judge Schreber's writings tell us the truth about
an at the time fairly influential pedagogue (Schreber's
father...), Das Kapital *could* still tell the
truth about capitalism even if Marx (probably counterfactually)
was nuts.
Yes, there were things going on in the area of the
[largely proto-?]psychiatry in the 19th century, but the distribution
of approaches to the treatment (or/and lack of same...)
of "lunatics" in 1870
may, for most of the sufferers' practical purposes, have
indeed amounted to "no psychology or psychairitry in the
time's that Marx lived". On the other hand, I would not
want to "bet the business" on a mad Marx being fortunate
enough to have been treated
by Harold Searles, Heinz Kohut or Masud Khan in 1970,
instead of by some duly licensed quack
who would have "fried his brain" and
thus have "saved" the world from ever hearing his voice.
I apologize for "getting carried away", and the excuse I have to
offer is an ever growing conviction that mania is often the
result of the frustration of persons' fundamentally
good and reasonable hopes and
desires to get their own needs met and to contribute into
their social world.
Now on to Hardin, whom I said I haven't read recently.
Instead of making assertions, I should have asked questions:
(1) Does Hardin make any arguments against the possibility of
rational collective social administration of the common
goods which are mankind's shared inheritance from nature and
our forebears (e.g., humanistic socialism)?
(2) Doesn't Hardin's article directly attack and refute
the notion that laissez-faire capitalism can be justified as
a constructive way of organizing society?
(3) Does Hardin make *any* recommendations in his
article?
Again, I apologize for postng before I'd *thought* through
what I *felt* was (feel is...) important (etc.).
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<!THINK [SGML]> Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
