Mark's environmentsal panic attack

Doyle Saylor djsaylor at
Tue Jun 6 20:23:51 MDT 2000

Greetings Comrades,
    Jose Perez heads his subject line with remark that Mark Jones had a
panic attack.  This is an anti-disabled remark on Jose's part.   Why?  First
Jose doesn't know whether or not Mark has panic attacks, and cannot under
the circumstances from just reading Mark's words know that.  If Mark for
some reason said yes he had panic attacks, Jose doesn't have the slightest
idea how that connects to Mark's ideas about the environment.

    Let me put this forward, I have had in the past panic attacks.  They are
not related to some theory about the world I have, rather panic attacks
arise from different sources.  I know people with severe mood disorders who
experience panic attacks three or four times a day.  They have little to do
with theories about this or that and they have a great deal to do with other
issues in how a human body works.

    The point of this sort of thinking on my part is to make it hard to
politically make anti-disabled remarks about comrades.  Jose thinks it smart
as hell to say Mark's panic attack caused him to issue some comment about
global warming.  Well, since Jose does not understand what a panic attack
really is, how does making some serious comment about Mark have a
relationship to a disability?

    Make no mistake, only a fraction of the population has panic attacks, it
is a sign of disability, not a political mistake.  Who cares about whether
Mark has a panic attack in order to write about global warming?  Which one
of you reading out there gives a fig about that part of the content of
Mark's thinking.  You don't give a fig, because the political content of
Mark's remarks has little to do with how Mark fears anything in the sense of
a panic attack.

    I might disagree with Mark Jones at times, but where I have to use an
attack against any sort of disabling part of Mark's life, my Marxist
thinking fails to guide my thinking.  Jose like many people thinks that the
problem of political disagreement can easily be summarized by saying my
opponent is just a nut case, and ignore the facts of being disabled and that
socialist and communist will be struggling to make society work for every
worker.  There are so many working class people who have a disability.  Why
make that a part of attacking a person we disagree with?
Doyle Saylor

More information about the Marxism mailing list