Re: insanity [was: Welcoming Stan Goff Out of Marxism]

[Doyle Saylor <doylesaylor@xxxxxxx>]

greetings Economists,

On Dec 3, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Jim Devine wrote:

> okay, why don't we use the word "bonkers" to refer to being driven to
> distraction or total anger by the conditions one live under and save
> "insane" for the legal people? (It's not a psychological term, by the
> way.)

Doyle;
I'm trying to get Doug to look at what people really mean by how a
social groups abuses members.  That we (Doug or Louis or Doyle) could
say that is not socialist for x reasons.  For example torture can
create post traumatic stress disorders which effectively is a mild form
of 'insanity' if we want to medicalize the terms.  Or we might just say
abuse of a variously described forms are a social problem not a medical
problem.

Of course you would catch bonkers, which I let slide by.  There is a
deep level argument about social organization of the working class that
is involved.  What people mean when they refer to 'insane' or bonkers
are conditions so extreme they produce genuine long lasting mental
stresses that distort and render a persons life changed from then on.

On the other hand, what then do we do?  I think all of these sorts of
'knowledge' production regimes can be united into a single totality to
use Angelus word.   So that across the board no organization is
permitted to abuse members to the point of harm.  But that a place is
made as well for everyone whether they are insane or not.  That then
letting all in but not allowing any abuse represents a huge step
forward in conceptual basis of socialist organization.  The key element
which is missing in the Socialist concept is the means of producing
knowledge that could define such a totality.  We are caught now in a
conundrum, that our Socialist connections are small scale.  A sect as
it were hides in plain sight, because the whole doesn't know what is
happening in the 'semi-clandestine' sects.

And what is the definition of abuse that applies so that 'insanity' is
not inflicted?  Again the vagueness of the political ambition hinders
us from acting to demand of all socialist organizations that no abuse
can be done against anyone for any reason.  For this fundamental rule
of organization is truly where a mass movement in the developed
countries would spring.  A colossal interconnected mass working
together in ways that are impossible in capitalist knowledge production
requires certain knowledge that abuse is made moot.
Doyle