--- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Carrol Cox wrote:
1. What validity does psychoanalysis have? Answer:
[P]sychonalysis [is]
a mistake that grew into an imposture. Frederick
C. Crews, Preface to
_Unauthorized Freud: Doubters Confront a Legend_,
ed. Frederick Crews
(New York:
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
I
don't want to get into the details, but this is not
just a blow-off opinion. There is depth and thought
behind it. jks
Neither do I; the topic is not really suitable for e-list discussion.
But in fact all _positive_ references to psychoanalysis on e-lists
_also_
joanna bujes wrote:
You need to explain why psychonalysis is an obvious mistake before we
can take up the issue of its noxious influence.
It all depends. If somebody finds it helpful in writing about French
symbolist poetry, who can object? However, as science it is completely
bogus. At the worst,
Oxfam International Press Release - 8 February 2004
Big brand retailers turning up the heat for vulnerable workers
Big brand companies and retailers in the fashion and food industries are
driving down employment conditions for millions of women workers around
the world, according to a new
New Yorker Magazine
CONTRACT SPORT
by JANE MAYER
What did the Vice-President do for Halliburton?
Issue of 2004-02-16 and 23
(clip)
George Sigalos, a Halliburton executive, recently gave a speech at a
conference in Washington for businesspeople who hoped to obtain
government contracts in Iraq.
NY Review of Books, Volume 51, Number 3 February 26, 2004
The Wars of the Texas Succession
By Paul Krugman
American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in
the House of Bush
by Kevin Phillips
Viking, 397 pp., $25.95
The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House,
My research on this subject tells me
(1) that Freud and his followers (e.g., Bettelheim) are useless if not destructive on
issues of psychosis, schizophrnia, autism, etc. As LP points out, Bettelheim and his
crowd told mothers that they were to blame for their children's autism, which turns
Mike Ballard wrote:
Why *don't* the proles revolt? After all, capitalism
is way past its use-by date by now. That's
demonstrated on this list daily by the countless,
excellent news articles posted.
Could this condition originate in a conservative
psychological character structure rooted in the
Eubulides wrote:
An expose on how Wal-Mart's attorneys navigate the thicket of
international contracts to create their planet wide commodity chain and
the ensuing misery for over a million workers would be a real world
mockery of what is left of neoclassical theories of the firm. I know Liza
Carrol Cox wrote:
Neither do I; the topic is not really suitable for e-list discussion.
But in fact all _positive_ references to psychoanalysis on e-lists
_also_ consist of blow-off opinions, since they always take the
validity of psychoanalysis for granted. Occasionally I merely like to
signal
On Monday, February 9, 2004 at 10:28:36 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes:
...
Or, if you want to take it further, there's Judith Butler's argument
- rooted in that silly doctrine called psychoanalysis - that subjects
are formed in subjection (through deference to authority figures,
like parents, and
Preview: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021216s=featherstonec=1
Michael Perelman wrote:
Any previews available?
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 09:57:28PM -0800, Eubulides wrote:
I know Liza
Featherstone is working on a story of the corp. Is any one else looking at
that issue?
Ian
--
Mike Ballard wrote:
Why *don't* the proles revolt? After all, capitalism
is way past its use-by date by now. That's
demonstrated on this list daily by the countless,
excellent news articles posted.
Could this condition originate in a conservative
psychological character structure rooted
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Bill Lear wrote:
So, our chains become part of us, and attempts to break the chains
therefore hurt?
They not only become part of us, they made us.
Doug
Bill Lear wrote:
So, our chains become part of us, and attempts to break the chains
therefore hurt?
They not only become part of us, they made us.
Doug
Very true, but does the fact that we can conceptualize and grasp that we
are partly the product of the chains and backwardness that bind us
No, following the Frankfurt School, the search for the "good father" produces
submissiveness (a.ka. false consciousness), a desire to be protected from
external threatening forces (Bush's invocation of terrorists), and rage at
anyone who would end the possibility of repairing the damage
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-oe-schlaes9feb09,1,292209.story
COMMENTARY
A Political Year of Yalies: Boola Boola for Meritocracy
By Amity Shlaes
New York-based Amity Shlaes is a senior columnist for the Financial
Times. This article appears here by special arrangement with that
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=216707category=;
BCCode=newsdate=2/7/2004
Feds win right to war protesters' records Albany Times-Herald
Saturday,
February 7, 2004
By RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press
DES MOINES, Iowa -- In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in
So, should the decline of the British empire have been predicted
because Brits are subjects? I always marveled that Brits were willing
to be so described.
Gene Coyle
Doug Henwood wrote:
Mike Ballard wrote:
Why *don't* the proles revolt? After all, capitalism
is way past its use-by date by
Doug Henwood wrote:
Or, if you want to take it further, there's Judith Butler's argument
- rooted in that silly doctrine called psychoanalysis - that subjects
are formed in subjection (through deference to authority figures,
like parents, and their successors, like language and law), and that
joanna bujes wrote:
Psychonalysis, in its more radical forms, helps the patient become aware
of this conditioning. Its goal (like that of Buddhism) is to enable the
subject to be fully present. This full presence is not something that is
achieved once and for all, but a practice of awareness that
Louis Proyect wrote:
You mean the neurotic is not adjusted to one of the most maladjusted
societies since the dawn of civilization? Much of the time I feel like
Alan Bates in The King of Hearts anyhow.
No. I never said anything about adjustment. I was speaking about one's
ability to be present:
joanna bujes wrote:
No. I never said anything about adjustment. I was speaking about one's
ability to be present: to present injustice, to present beauty, to
present poverty, to present uglyness, to present stupidity... I said
that the neurotic is unable to experience the present.
I have no idea
joanna bujes wrote:
I don't think you need psychoanalysis to observe that human beings
(uniquely among animals) go through a long, long period of dependence.
No, but people not familiar with psychoanalysis would dismiss early
experience as irrelevant to adult thinking behavior - just like
Surely this is not an either or proposition. Precisely because we are
dealing with a social problem, it is incumbent upon us to examine from
as many different perspectives as possible, why they don't react the way
we prescribe.
Joel Blau
Louis Proyect wrote:
joanna bujes wrote:
No. I never
Joel Kovel, Stanley Aronowitz and other left figures have written about their "breakdowns" in their early books. . .stuck in that limbo abyss between the official views practices of the world (psychoanalysis with Kovel, the union movement with Aronowitz) and their emergent selves. . .many of us
Craven, Jim wrote:
Very true, but does the fact that we can conceptualize and grasp that we
are partly the product of the chains and backwardness that bind us not
suggest the possibility of transcendence or at least of not accepting
such chains as limits or a fait accompli?
Absolutely. If I
Joel Blau wrote:
Surely this is not an either or proposition. Precisely because we are
dealing with a social problem, it is incumbent upon us to examine from
as many different perspectives as possible, why they don't react the way
we prescribe.
By all means. I myself took prozac about six years
Doug Henwood wrote:
It's very interesting that some of PEN-L's most anti-Freudian posters
act out their psychopathology on the Internet every day.
It is also interesting to note that some reformists don't have the guts
to defend their ideas on PEN-L and prefer to make personal snipes at
people
Joel Blau wrote:
Surely this is not an either or proposition. Precisely because we are
dealing with a social problem, it is incumbent upon us to examine from
as many different perspectives as possible, why they don't react the way
we prescribe.
In a panel on Psychoanalysis Politics at 2001 (?)
In a message dated 2/9/04 2:57:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It has been
observed time and again how those recruited young and innocent to radical
groups have defected once they felt the force of tradition.
I know and quote this passage routinely, Doug (hey, out there,
I have just finished reading Tuxedo Park, a book about Alfred
Lee Loomis, a Wall Street lawyer and financier who cashed out before
the Depression and turned to science.
He built his own scientific lab at Tuxedo Park, where he sponsored and
mentored scientists who were or became giants in the
from Kevin Phillips' recent book, as quoted by Paul Krugman in the NY
Review of Books:
Bush's day-to-day language was a veritable biblical message center.
Besides the ever-present references to evil and evil ones, chief
White House speechwriter Michael Gerson, a onetime college theology
And if you want to take it even further -- that capitalism has been able
to deliver, despite episodic crises, a modest but steady improvement in
living standards and working conditions for the mass of Western wage-
and salary-earners, despite Marx's belief that it had exhausted its
historic
Please, sniping of all sorts does not belong here.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 02:52:08PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote:
It's very interesting that some of PEN-L's most anti-Freudian posters
act out their psychopathology on the Internet every day.
It is also interesting to
Has the US economy entered a new era?
It seems to me that the US Department of Justice, along with other
relevant agencies, has lost interest in enforcing antitrust laws.
I think we are back to the 1880s and 1890s, where Trusts and pools
will rationalize capacity for the good of all?
Banks and
Bush and the Texas Guard flew the F 102. An aviation buddy points out
that the F 102 had no conceivable mission in Vietnam. So even if he
showed up, his unit wasn't going to go.
Gene Coyle
Bush and the Texas Guard flew the F 102. An aviation buddy points out
that the F 102 had no conceivable mission in Vietnam. So even if he
showed up, his unit wasn't going to go.
Gene Coyle
Response (Jim C) Absolutely true. At the time Bush got into the Texas
Air Guard (with a national waiting
My 2 cents: I read recently that a top Microsoft lawyer is moving over to
head the ABA's anti-trust section. I recall that there was an exchange of
staff between Microsoft and the DOJ just after their settlement in 2001.
Also, consider the Tunney Act proceeding wherein the judge was supposed to
In a way, the Skull and Bones/Loomis gap is similar to the dichotomy
between real and financial capital. Economic strength is increased by
those who develop the technology and drained by those who live by
nepotism and connections. Both factors are important.
-- Michael
Perelman Economics
my 2 kopeks: it was under Clinton (or perhaps under Bush I or even Reagan) that
anti-trust was shelved. The idea was that with globalization of competition in product
markets, anti-trust wasn't needed. Of course, not all products have globalized
markets...
Jim Devine
To URPE Members and Friends
Forwarded from the Alliance of Radical Intellectual Organizations
Another Boston is possible. Another world is possible.
On July 23-25, 2004 at the University of Massachusetts at Boston
So are progressive economists for competition? Doesn't a high
degree of concentration make social democratic politics easier?
Doug
That was the big fight during the New Deal. One wing of the Democratic
Party called for trust busting; the other, for organizing the potential
of larger economic formations.
Both sides have anti-progressive consequences.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:10:45PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
So are
Fascinating stuff, Jim Craven. Never knew the details. Is it all
documented in one place?
- Original Message -
From: Craven, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 5:32 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] Response:Bush and the F 102
Bush and the Texas Guard flew the
To URPE Members and Friends
Sent by Bill Tabb
See website for questions:
http://www.globalstudiesassociation.org/conferences.html
Deadline for papers: March 1, 2004:
http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/call4papers.htm
***
Global
Actually, the Reagan years were more important. The Chicago school,
especially Robert Bork, made the case that antitrust hobbled American
corporations in the international market.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 03:08:28PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
my 2 kopeks: it was under Clinton (or perhaps under
To URPE Members and Friends
From Joanne Steele
**
Call For Papers: RADICAL ECONOMICS AND THE LABOR MOVEMENT
CONFERENCE ON RADICAL ECONOMICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY:
RADICAL ECONOMICS AND THE LABOR MOVEMENT
Date: 15 - 17
Yes, it is at least back as far as Reagan that anti-trust was shelved.
There has been an on-going interest in cases where foreign firms --
those bad folks verging on evil -- were colluding.
Gene
Devine, James wrote:
my 2 kopeks: it was under Clinton (or perhaps under Bush I or even
Michael Perelman wrote:
That was the big fight during the New Deal. One wing of the Democratic
Party called for trust busting; the other, for organizing the potential
of larger economic formations.
Both sides have anti-progressive consequences.
Of course they do, without progressive
You are right, but which is more open for abuse through powerful
manipulation?
I wish we could have the benefits of the larger formation, without the
negative consequences. Petty capitalism also has many unattractive
features.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:24:49PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
along the same lines, you may enjoy
Zachary, G. Pascal. 1997. Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of
the American Century (NY: Free Press).
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
I might guess that the Bork theory aluded to had either of the following
underpinnings: a) more concentration in US markets would allow higher profit
margins there, enhancing the capability of subsidizing entry into foreign
markets; or, b) a size matters argument that the bigger you are, the more
oligopoly or monopoly makes it easier for unions (compared to competitive markets),
though of course oligopolists like Henry Ford opposed unions violently. Without
successful countervailing power from unions and other forces, oligopolists are
horrible.
Jim Devine
more consolidation means more efficiency. I think that the Japanese
model was in the background of the thinking at the time.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:40:15PM -0500, Peter Hollings wrote:
I might guess that the Bork theory aluded to had either of the following
underpinnings: a) more
56 matches
Mail list logo
