Greetings Economists, The infant is being an infant hence infantile. You are ignoring the 'disorder' in infantile disorder. If Lenin had written 'childish' he would have captured your point. He used disorder meaning 'disorder' and that is not a term used for 'able' babies. You can't dodge the implications of the words by trying to shift it away toward childish. On Jun 25, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
Am I being able-ist in calling that infantile behavior?
Then how does that apply in a realistic manner to Bush? Is he part of class that does things because it is a class or is it the personal 'disorder' that Bush has? Or the group? What does a group structure do that is like an individual disorder? Are disorders really the foundation of capitalist economics? It equally but more benignly means virtually nothing to say Bush acts childish, but it certainly doesn't say a 'disorder' is the problem with a group. You favor sometimes using the term, narcissistic, which is an attempt to label a personality disorder. It's just your fancy as a writer to metaphorically say someone is narcissistic, but in terms of what a class does narcissistically it is not connected to the larger class workings of capitalism. If over night Utah Mormons found a solution to narcissism capitalism would still be here. thanks, Doyle
