AUT: re: fambly values

[andrew robinson <ldxar1@xxxxxxxxx>]

"family values... be also a reaction against
capitalist atomism,  and bring forth thoughts of sons
or daughters lost to drug addiction, and to fathers
who run away from all responsibilities... One problem
with so much of 'the left' is that it too often tend
to cultivate an unability to see through more than one
eye, and thus to some extent be caught within the same
moralistic web that the advocates of 'family values'."
(Harald)

Harald's concept of "moralism" has always been and
remains obscure to me.  Surely a moral objection to
the "loss" of one's children to drug addiction is
itself "moralistic"?  And an idea that individuals
naturally have "responsibilities" they should stick to
is also a kind of (ascetic/conformist) morality?  In
other words, the very problem with the
"anti-capitalism" within "family values" is precisely
its moralism.  This is why I would oppose such
positions resolutely, because the issue of (for
instance) personal reactions to social circumstances
(drug use, family breakups etc.) should be treated as
a sociological, not a moral, issue.  Yes Harald calls
OPPOSITION to this agenda "moralistic"... This is
beyond Orwellian, and creeping towards Lewis Carroll
actually.

"In other words, it is very much possible to have more
than one thought in one head at the same time."

Yeah, it's called schizophrenia.  Then again, I doubt
most Bush voters are schizophrenic.  Probably Harald
means that one thought can express a number of
libidinal investments (it can be a "sinthome" so to
speak), or that an element of discourse can be
articulated to numerous other elements?  Or would that
be too Deleuzo-Pomo-Nietzschean?

"And it is absolutly critical to any social
revolutionary thought, or a reform movement for that,
to ble able to see such contradictions, and also be
able to discern the true within the false."
But not:
"The Good against the Evil in good old evangelical
fashion."

Such a huge difference?  Hmmm...

And after this, a whole polemic against postmodernism
again...  And no explanation of why a challenge to
Harald's particular version of the analysis of social
dynamics should constitute "making social analysis
into an absolute taboo"... Or why such a "taboo"
implies a "stultifying moralism" (this undefined
boo-word again)...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---