Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:01:29 GMT From: janstr-AT-chan.nl (Jan Straathof) Subject: Re: M-PSY: Power on the streets Hi Chris, Ilan and all, appreciating your intriguedness: Regarding my claim: "basicly i see no major differences in the personality structure of a revolutionary and that of e.g. a turn-around manager". Chris wrote: >Does this give a new twist to the marxist contention >that capitalism creates its own gravediggers!!! Or even worse: that these potential gravediggers are turned into useful defenders. What i mean is that modern (Dutch) technocrate leadership is vowed to change society by means of piecemeal re-organisation and thus the "revolutionary" forse is fragmentated in small mutually un-linked (in time, space and social strata) actions. As such all these little revolutions "suck out the blood" of the (young) proletariate and prevent the emergence of an unifying solidarity. An even reinforcing and alienating factor here is the lack of ideological (+ ethical?) depth, due to an (also piecemeally) stripped educational system: where the curriculum is squeezed "back to the basics", where the average classroom counts over more than 25-30 pupils, and teachers get chronically underpayed. Ilan wrote: >I think I not only disagree with this "twist" but have significant base >to this: >Serious psychology research have found real variable discerning rebels >from antisocial on the one hand and the "integraters" on the other side. >For sure there are common factors with various others - it depends what >you search for. The claim that "basicly i see no major differences in >the personality structure of a revolutionary" is in contradiction with >findings of scientific findings of 50 years ago!! To mention one, see >Erich From book "Escape From Freedom". But IIan, i was using the term "revolutionary" in a preliminary broad (o.k. vague) sense: and thus imo a "revolutionary guard" could easily include your "rebels", "antisocials", and "integraters" (despite the various differences all could still be labeled as revolutionaries). Regarding the sources of revolutionary change, i even think Fromm is on my side when i stated in my previous post that contextual (social) factors play a more prominent role than (individual) personality factors. The forces that drive peolpe to escape into authoritarianism, destructivism and conformism are not inborn but of social nature. In _Beyond the Chains of Ilusion - my Encounter with Marx and Freud_ Fromm's Credo (ch.12) reads: "Thus the most important factor of the development of the individual is constituted by the structure and morality of the society wherein one is born". [my translation] (btw how come you label Fromm as scientific and Freud as a fraud, whereas apparently Fromm is heavily leaning on Freudian concepture) >My question was not rhetoric, I just hope members of the list are more >up-to-date or have interesting hunches. My hunch is that your irritation is induced by the fact that we haven't yet properly defined the term "revolutionaries" and if this thread is to develop in anything fruitfull, we will be forced to do so. Imo any definition of the term "revolutionaries" necessary includes a reference to supra-indivdual (viz. social) events; and thus it seems incoherent to define the term "revolutionaries" purely in terms of individual (biological-emonitional-cognitive) predispositions. Chris wrote: >Sure. Intelligent discussion of the cult of the personality >in "marxist-leninist" literature emphasises the idea of collectivity >and that whatever the great leader does, is built up over >interaction in a project that is collective. Hitler is a 'clarifying' example of iconozation and idolization here: it seems he had an immense wardrobe full of doubles, tripples etc. (e.g. he possessed of 10 pair of the same boots). Presumably the reason was that he always wanted to look the same to his "Volk": he was afraid the peolpe wouldn't recognize him anymore if he changed his apparel. IIan wrote: >Chairman Mao wrote on the mechanisms and dynamics of >degenerating of winning revolutions in the article "On The >Contradiction Among The People". Organizations of low >democracy like that of the common communist or Trotskists >party makes "leaders" and seduce them to build their status >on primitive emotional structures of "follow the leader". Are you implying that Mao actually was advocating 'full' democracy here? Chis wrote: >I do not get the >impression that any supporters of the Communist Party of Peru >are subscribing to this list, but they have made some interesting >explanations of the situation where their former highly influential >leader has been in captivity now for several years. I'm not well informed on the Peruvian situation, please tell me more. Chris wrote: > As for the power struggles on e-mail, I think >we have very much avoided this so far, but it may not be >possible completely and it is arguable that it is >all under cover. Maybe our goal should be to handle this >too with subtlety. Sure, so my advise would be 'let it rest', let's deal with the 'power- play' on this list when it arises and let's not stir up the hornets' nest yet ;-) >>>Does power lie on the streets of Amsterdam? >> >>You could say that we are governed by a bunch of pragmatic >>and liberal socio-technocrates. > >But perhaps this question was also serious. Oh, but my remarks weren't meant that unserious: Imo the dutch political situation seems very much in balance. Due to the (cleverly) fragmented power spectrum and the piecemeal implementation of social reform, the formation of any oppositional majority and/or momentum is prevented. IIan wrote: >Not in Israel where the supreme court approved of mild torture of >Palestinians. And I doubt that the conditions in other capitalist >countries is much better. If you're implying here that the state's execution of her 'monopoly of violence' depends on contextual factors (viz. being at war or not) than i agree with you. Just as i don't believe that Israelian police- (wo)men are more (or less) cruel than Dutch ones. This doesn't mean however that i approve of torture (even in its 'mild' forms). Regards Jan ----------- PS. Chris asked: >Sorry what is CMC? Computer Mediated Communicaton >are you aware your mail is forward by "wirehub.nl"? It sounds >vaguely uncomfortable. Sorry, forgive my ignorance, but i don't see what you're suggesting: wire= cable for electronic (data) interchange hub= 'box' used as centre of connection, junction of transfer ----------- --- from list marxism-psych-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005