I'm still subscribed, but am in abeyance. I don't seem to have time to participate in it. I think I stopped reading it when I had my heart surgery. Currently, I'm putting a lot of effort into a project to apply Ernst Bloch's notion of nonsynchronism to social work diagnostic practice, part of a broader SW diagnostic reasoning project, which will, I think bring together theoretically psychoanalysis, marxism in a non-diamat way, the Annales school, some Durkheim and Weber, under a general theory of understanding based on Dilthey. This is going to be a kind of life work, which, since I'm sixty and just had bypass surgery, means I feel I ought to try and be more focused than I've spent my life being.
Please present my compliments to the LBO list.
Christopher
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Pugliese [mailto:michael098762001 at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 14:14 PM To: Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema Subject: ("Is Christopher Rhoades Dykema still on the list?")
------- Forwarded message ------- From: "snit snat" <snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org, lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Churchill's complaint Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:14:39 -0500
At 10:33 AM 2/15/2005, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>
>> In politics, it not only what you mean, it's
>> what you say, and even what you almost say.
>> By Churchill's classification, if some members
>> of this list happened to work in the WTC, they
>> would fall into the category of "little Eichmanns."
>> In the Spring before 9-11, I did a talk in the
>> WTC in front of a class taught by the very Marxist
>> Tom Dickins. We could have been LEs too.
>
> Yup. I talked to Tom's class several times in the WTC. My mother worked
> there (though she retired long ago). My upstairs neighbor was killed
> there.
>
> I almost said I'm surprised, then I thought again and realized I
> shouldn't be, that it's rarely noted in political discourse that those
> of us who were most directly affected by 9/11 - New Yorkers - are among
> the least bellicose in the U.S. From the first, there really wasn't much
> bellowing for revenge coming from the city that was hit. Most of it
> comes from a heartland that's never going to be hit by anything other
> than a tornado. The whole anti-terror thing is more about xenophobia and
> paranoia than self-defense.
>
> Doug
I've seen the numbers on this, so it's not that I don't believe the general trend. However, my experience right after 911 was that people in upstate NY--former colleagues at my alma mater, family and friends, and colleagues in New Jersey--were _very_ much in favor of invading Afghanistan. When we got in arguments on the list for friends of the department, people claimed that I just didn't understand because I was safe far away in LimpDick. Which was really funny: LimpDick is home to MacDill Airforce base!
I wonder if you were to do a map you'd find the strongest sentiments closer to the targets, yet not close enough to experience the horror directly. The other issues, which we've discussed before, is the blue/state red state phenom -- where antiwar sentiments are historically much higher in urban centers in general.
Anyway, another thing is that I'm wondering how a Freudian might explain this phenom. You call it paranoia -- but it seems something else to me. Or, maybe I'm just not well-versed enough in the psychodynamics that underpin paranoia from a Freudian perspective. Is Christopher Rhoades Dykema still on the list?
"We live under the Confederacy. We're a podunk bunch of swaggering pious hicks."
--Bruce Sterling
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Michael Pugliese
-- Michael Pugliese