Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[equationgirl]

I think s/he means defences like a fortress, like a Big Greedy Bank Fortress, rather than Freudian ones, but it took a while to work that out.

It's late, but I don't get it.

 

[Red Cat]

Instead of attacking the City with big sticks we can just get the docs to hassle their banker patients into giving up their money addiction. Straightforward, see?

 

[equationgirl]

Instead of attacking the City with big sticks we can just get the docs to hassle their banker patients into giving up their money addiction. Straightforward, see?

I get that, thanks for explaining.

Still don't think it would happen though.

 

[Red Cat]

It's not a suggestion I've ever heard before.

 

[Firky]

Your post wasn't taken by me to be some sophisticated means of shutting down debate. Her last intervention was though, and that's what I thought it was clear I was referring to - eg by calling it a replay of the previous attempts. I apologise, I should have made it clearer by chopping off "This is" and replacing it with "Her post is", which I thought of doing but was too lazy to.

There's overlap between banker's cocaine habits and their money habits physiologically, and psychologically as ways of making an unpredictable world seem controllable. Like with LP's bedroom/"hovel" being presented as some kind of poverty, capital accumulation is being furthered in an apparently personal domain. It's allowing them to stay awake and emotionally numb enough to fuck people over isn't it ? If bankers get hassled more over their money hunger as a medical issue by doctors it might be quite helpful - a back door through the defences.

Medical opinion which would underpin doctors actually hassling their poor, afflicted banker-patients about it within doctor patient relationships is already developing though.
The premise seems simple, I don't understand why you say it makes no sense whatsoever.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rrupt-scientists-claim-addictive-cocaine.html

I agree about the likely class sympathies of doctors, but they wouldn't need to feel sympathy for left wingers, just a little bit perhaps for their money-power junkie banker patients.

Perplexing.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[equationgirl]

Perplexing.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I thought it was just me being a bit thick and not understanding

 

[Firky]

Don't breathe a sigh of relief just yet, we both could be thick.

 

[Firky]

That Daily Mail article looks like it is about people who get hooked on adrenalin, dopamine and other neurotransmitters. So they seek out and repeat behaviours that fulfil that need.

I didn't read it beyond the second paragraph before my Jazzz klaxon went off.

E2A: Maybe that was unfair as this is actually science.

 

[equationgirl]

That Daily Mail article looks like it is about people who get hooked on adrenalin, dopamine and other neurotransmitters. So they seek out and repeat behaviours that fulfil that need.

I didn't read it beyond the second paragraph before my Jazzz klaxon went off.

E2A: Maybe that was unfair as this is actually science.

Well, Science as reported by the Daily Mail, and there was no link to the original study.

 

[Firky]

Still don't get what cocaine, bankers hungry for money, Laurie Penny's hovel and doctors have in common though.

They're all UMC?

 

[Blagsta]

That Daily Mail article looks like it is about people who get hooked on adrenalin, dopamine and other neurotransmitters. So they seek out and repeat behaviours that fulfil that need.

I didn't read it beyond the second paragraph before my Jazzz klaxon went off.

E2A: Maybe that was unfair as this is actually science.

Its well understood that cocaine (in fact most drugs) taps into the brain's reward mechanism (dopamine). That article seems arse about tit though. Cocaine is as addictive as power is what it should say.

 

[Firky]

That's what I gathered - hence the comment about the Jazzz element, crowbar the findings to fit into what you want.

 

[olenyok]

If you didn't mean 'medical opinion' why did you say it?

A doctor with an opinion on a physiological process - addiction - is medical enough for me to be comfortable, in day to day usage, calling it medical opinion in the sense that it relates to a medical phenomenon. You've highlighted a rather more precise sense in which it isn't. Ok. I don't think you've picked up on anything which affects at all the simple response I was putting forward to you there. I.E, money power as an object of addiction makes enough more sense than "no sense whatsoever" that this 'academic' doctor is happy to put it forward, too.

Doctors clearly do hassle people about stuff - again, replace "hassle" with "advise" and the case I'm making remains exactly the same, but perhaps with word choice somewhat more to your taste. My doctor's hassled (/advised) me about overeating, smoking, getting stressed about my work, sleep pattern, lack of excercise, for years, all off his own bat without me soliciting any of it.

GPs see people for patient reported symptoms including very general ones, which as yet have no diagnosis, all the time. Acid reflux is a diagnosis one of my family was given stomach ache, and over months, after the doctor's suggestion, it became clear it was triggered almost exclusively by job-stress. So your argument that they wouldn't see anyone unless it had been somehow established beforehand "the 'money hunger' was causing medical problems" doesn't accurately reflect the sequence in which GPs do things. The patient only has to provide the symptoms, not the link between symptom and cause. And addiction causes all sorts of symptoms.

If, hypothetically, DSM-6, or whatever, ends up putting money-power in it's basket of things it's possible to be addicted to, then that category of diagnosis will be available to GPs. I've read that doctors are talking about internet addiction as a candidate for a diagnosis. Would that make no sense at all, or perhaps just a little ?

It all seems straightforward enough - if it's feasible that doctors decide that the physiological and psychological processes involved in compulsive relations to the internet or money-power similar enough to their template of addiction, or another of their diagnostic categories, from what point of authority are you saying that the prospect 'makes no sense at all' ?

Back door defences - just a figurative way of saying if capital doesn't give up power when confronted with injustice, maybe it will give some up because wielding it is making practitioners ill ... enough to switch jobs to something less destructive or demand less exploitative working practices. There were reports of young bankers bursting into tears during the height of the credit crunch and their bosses perplexed at the vulnerability. Perhaps their situation is ripe for doctors to provide the voice of authority they need to confirm suspicions that their jobs are making them sick.

 

[Blagsta]

It's a rather, ermmm, fanciful argument.

 

[Firky]

I am off to bed or I'll still be up at 4am but kudos for originality.

 

[Firky]

The thread that keeps on giving.

 

[equationgirl]

A doctor with an opinion on a physiological process - addiction - is medical enough for me to be comfortable, in day to day usage, calling it medical opinion in the sense that it relates to a medical phenomenon. You've highlighted a rather more precise sense in which it isn't. Ok. I don't think you've picked up on anything which affects the simple response I was putting forward to you there. I.E, money power as an object of addiction makes enough more sense than "no sense whatsoever" that this 'academic' doctor is happy to put it forward, too.

Doctors clearly do hassle people about stuff - again, replace "hassle" with "advise" and the case I'm making remains exactly the same, but perhaps with word choice somewhat more to your taste. My doctor's hassled (/advised) me about overeating, smoking, getting stressed about my work, sleep pattern, lack of excercise, for years, all off his own bat without me soliciting any of it.

GPs see people for patient reported symptoms including very general ones, which as yet have no diagnosis, all the time. Acid reflux is a diagnosis one of my family was given stomach ache, and over months, after the doctor's suggestion, it became clear it was triggered almost exclusively by job-stress. So your argument that they wouldn't see anyone unless it had been somehow established beforehand "the 'money hunger' was causing medical problems" doesn't accurately reflect the sequence in which GPs do things. The patient only has to provide the symptoms, not the link between symptom and cause. And addiction causes all sorts of symptoms.

If, hypothetically, DSM-6, or whatever, ends up putting money-power in it's basket of things it's possible to be addicted to, then that category of diagnosis will be available to GPs. I've read that doctors are talking about internet addiction as a candidate for a diagnosis. Would that make no sense at all, or perhaps just a little ?

It all seems straightforward enough - if it's feasible that doctors decide that the physiological and psychological processes involved in compulsive relations to the internet or money-power similar enough to their template of addiction, or another of their diagnostic categories, from what point of authority are you saying that the prospect 'makes no sense at all'.

Back door defences - just a figurative way of saying if Capital doesn't give up power when confronted with injustice, maybe it will give some up because wielding it is making practitioners ill.

You're new to this forum, so I'll go a bit easy on you, but to be honest your explanation of the GP-patient relationship is extremely patronising. I'm fully aware of what a GP does, when a patient seeks their advice and what constitutes medical opinion. Quoting a Daily Mail article by someone who isn't a medical doctor, about a scientific study for which no other information is given and a hypothetical link between addiction and power does not count as evidence or support for your point.

 

[olenyok]

You're new to this forum, so I'll go a bit easy on you, but to be honest your explanation of the GP-patient relationship is extremely patronising. I'm fully aware of what a GP does, when a patient seeks their advice and what constitutes medical opinion. Quoting a Daily Mail article by someone who isn't a medical doctor, about a scientific study for which no other information is given and a hypothetical link between addiction and power does not count as evidence or support for your point.

Well, I don't share these views, either. But I've a report due in monday, and have to disentangle from everything else/not sleep till that's in, so I won't be replying anymore, at least until well after no one's interested any longer.

 

[emanymton]

Well, I don't share these views, either. But I've a report due in monday, and have to disentangle from everything else/not sleep till that's in, so I won't be replying anymore, at least until well after no one's interested any longer.

I think most people stopped being interested a while ago.


eta I feel a little bit bad for saying this

 

[equationgirl]

<snip>

Back door defences - just a figurative way of saying if capital doesn't give up power when confronted with injustice, maybe it will give some up because wielding it is making practitioners ill ... enough to switch jobs to something less destructive or demand less exploitative working practices. There were reports of young bankers bursting into tears during the height of the credit crunch and their bosses perplexed at the vulnerability. Perhaps their situation is ripe for doctors to provide the voice of authority they need to confirm suspicions that their jobs are making them sick.

Interesting edit there. Can you substantiate these reports of bankers bursting into tears?

Forgive my lack of sympathy for the poor bankers. It's a brutal, highly competitive career. It chews people up and spits them out. But that's known. It's been known for a long time, no-one tries to pretend otherwise. It's highly competitive because the rewards are perceived to be great, in terms of both money and benefits such as private healthcare, company cars, profit-sharing, bonuses etc.

Why should GPs stand up and say that working in the financial sector should come with a health warning when the the effects of workplace stress for any occupation are already well known?

 

[cesare]

Medicalisation as a form of social control isn't new. Suggesting using it to control bankers (a) lets bankers off the hook; and (b) would further affirm its use on all of us as a method of control. No, I don't think it's a good idea.

 

[SpineyNorman]

So we wouldn't have to worry about capitalism and smashing the state and all that jazz if everyone got the right medicine?

 

[equationgirl]

So we wouldn't have to worry about capitalism and smashing the state and all that jazz if everyone got the right medicine?

More likely capitalism could run amok while we were sedated and under control

 

[cesare]

Just as an overview (not source etc) the wiki entry is quite interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicalization

Although it focuses on the medical aspect rather than the political.

 

[cesare]

The overuse of trigger warnings/designated safe spaces feeds into this, of course. More sophisticated and covert forms of kettling, and ones that we're encouraged to use on ourselves.

 

[Athos]

This is just getting extremely creepy and stalky. Going through everything I do on social media for evidence of my life, my friends, speculating about how my friends live, how I live, my school, where I grew up. Please tell me how this is actually contributing for one second to useful political discourse?

I agree with you; there's little value in dissecting the minutiae of your online footprint.

And I regret the way that you have become one of the principal subjects of debate in this thread (albeit largely as a cipher for the phenomenon that you represent). Mostly, I regret it because you don't have that much significance to the serious discussion which takes place on these boards, or across the 'left' generally. But also, partly because some of the individual remarks were a bit close to the mark, and partly because even the more innocuous pisstaking (amongst which I consider some of my own jibes) could have a fairly oppressive effect when taken together. As much as I disagree with a lot of what you say, and as much as I dislike the elite liberal commentariat of which you are a part, ultimately, you are not the principal enemy, and I bear you no malice. I share some of Red Cat's discomfort about some of what has gone on in this thread, especially as you are a young person with some vulnerability.

But, you need to accept the lion's share of the responsibility for the personal nature of what has gone on. It's hard not to be personal when talking about your work, because you have made yourself and your image part of the brand; there are plenty of writers whose ideas I disagree with, but I don't know what they look and sound like, where they live, and who their friends are. If you're going to put that stuff out there to cultivate a public face, then it's going to be scrutinised.

More specifically, the only way people could engage with you on this thread is on a personal basis; you have not been willing to engage on any other level. Had you come here to contribute to "useful political discourse" then I'm sure people would have engaged with you on that level (I think equationgirl came closest to doing so). But I get the impression that your MO is to make pronouncements rather than enter debate; in fact, you appear to be affronted when anyone offers a counter-opinion. Furthermore, you often make things personal in your interactions with others e.g. the Starkey row and your criticisms of Harvey et al for being old white men. But, nevertheless, should you still wish to enter into political discourse (on this and other threads), it's not too late. And, as much as I disagree with you, I actually hope that you do engage.

And I hope that you have seen that, even on this thread, there's been some really interesting discussion. I think you got off on the wrong foot here by jumping to conclusions about about what this place (and it's population) is like. In fairness to you, I can understand how that might happen; I know that you must be used to being abused by idiots on Twitter etc. But it doesn't follow that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, or a misogynist etc. Maybe we all need to focus on ideas a bit more, rather than personalities and egos.

 

[The39thStep]

I've got solid wood tables, bookcases and cabinets in my front room. And a leather sofa. I'm practically a Tory I reckon.

I don't own any of it and have to do maintenance on the flats to knock the rent down to a rate I can afford but that's not the point - my front room is nice so I'm like royalty or something.

we could do with some pictures of peoples living rooms to test out this theory

 

[Athos]

Laurie gets sent to the headmaster.

You've let yourself down, and you've let the school down.

Could try harder.

 

[rekil]

It really doesn't. It doesn't affect anybody much, really.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Medicalisation as a form of social control isn't new. Suggesting using it to control bankers (a) lets bankers off the hook; and (b) would further affirm its use on all of us as a method of control. No, I don't think it's a good idea.

Nay to medicalisation, yay to the bastinado!