Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:05:35 +1000
From: Gary Maclennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au>
Subject: commenting on Andrew etc wasRe: Comment of Sean's post was Re: BHA:


There are two separate issues where Andrew and I have come into 
contact.  First there is Leninism.  He seems to have read me as a Leninist 
if not as a cheer leader for mass murderers. Frankly that is a little 
strange. I am no admirer of Lenin.  However I did think that Sean's post 
was reasoned and scholarly in tone.  It is all too easy to become strident 
on such matters.

Yoshie  (great to see ya again, Yoshie!) defends Lenin from the charge of 
economism. She is of course correct. However the question still remains 
whether Lenin was correct in his judgement that the consciousness of the 
working class was instinctively economist.

Now I will defend Lenin from the charge of Philistinism. Tobin has hear 
wrong.  Lenin was no Philistine.  My sources here are Deutscher and Wolfe 
and Lenin's own writings on literature and art. There is an interesting 
passage in a letter to Gorky that I am fond of quoting but I do not have it 
here in my office.  It has to do with Lenin telling Gorky he can no longer 
listen to music as it makes him want to pat heads when they need to 
smacked. This renunciation of the aesthetic hardly makes him a Philistine.


The second issue that Andrew has tagged me on is my review of Aronofsky's 
requiem for a Dream.  Of course it is all a matter of taste.  I heartily 
hated the film but admired aspects of it.  Andrew in his way says he cannot 
recommend it. He cites the caricature of the doctor and the mother who 
becomes addicted on prescription drugs.  He questions whether this is an 
accurate portrayal of senior citizens.

I too question it but did so with the categories that Engels and Lukacs (Is 
it ok to mention these non-libertarians?) used, namely naturalism and 
realism.  Requiem is a naturalist text in that it has a non-stratified view 
of the old people.  However having said that I know old people who have 
been made addicted to prescription drugs and I know of doctors quite like 
the doctor in the film.

As for the question of the evil of heroin.  The film makes that clear.  I 
approved of that but Andrew seemed to be bored by it.  I will not comment 
on this, except to say I sincerely hope he always find the subject boring.

Finally on the tone of the posts.  Frankly I hate anyone saying the list is 
for this and not for that.  We all know what the list is for.  We do not 
need coppers unless someone becomes psychotically abusive as happened once 
before.

regards

Gary



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---