[Marxism] Re: Question of Alienation and Anxiety

Tony Abdo gojack10 at hotmail.com
Mon May 10 00:53:58 MDT 2004

Ehret is no more an authority on the cause of overeating than Adkins or 
Pritkin are.  In fact, he is less of a one than them, Melvin.  Let's look at 
what you wrote for a minute.

Overeating and obesity are not the same, although one has to overeat to
become obese. Overeating is linked to all kinds of descriptions of the 
disposition of man/women. Eating, starvation, overeating and obesity have
emerged as sharp points of contention in the social struggle today - a form 
struggle in the imperial centers I could not conceive of 25 years ago.

We are materialists. What is the metabolic basis of obesity and overeating?
Exactly what is it that we are eating and overeating? On what basis does our
current culture of foodstuff arise and reproduce itself as a social process 
society? What is the bottom line metabolic process - as opposed to 
descriptions of why people allegedly "overeat?" >>

What Melvin objects to and calls a 'subjective description', is pointing out 
that depression leads to lack of control over eating.  But he doesn't bother 
to explain why he thinks that so, other than to talk about a diet plan and 
metabolism, and referring to what Marx wrote in 1844!  'Materialism' is not 
just concentrating on metabolism of eating.

<<Professor Arnold Ehert remains the undisputed authority on eating, 
and obesity. Ehert is to the science of man/women as a metabolic process - 
Karl Marx is to the science of society.>>

Really?  Here is a site that adores him, and I find it less than convincing, 
Melvin?   Convincincing about anything... 

<<Why we eat what we eat and its evolution as a human need has been outlined 
Marx in his "Philosophic and Economic Manuscript of 1844" - or rather Marx
presents the method to unravel these questions.

Overeating and obesity - as a societal force, is not driven by the 
disposition of man/women or depression and/or anxiety.>>

Do you mind why the disintegration of community and family life in the last 
1/2 century would not lead to depression rising, and that depression also 
leading to an epidemic of over consumption?

<<No Comrade . . . this is how the bourgeoisie approaches such questions. 
is the metabolic process? What is the origin of need and why do we eat what 
eat and then overeat? Over eating is "connected" to imperial privilege, but
this does not explain the metabolic process.>>

I don't even know what you are trying to say here?   By mentioning that 
increasing societal  depression, stress, and alienation are what causes 
overconsumption of food substances has nothing to do with the bourgeosie 
approach to anything?  Why do you think people are getting fatter, Melvin?

<<Seek out the writings of Arnold Ehert. It is not the subjective 
of man/women that causes over eating and obesity. Something else is involved
that can be rationally explained from the standpoint of a material 
conception of
biology and man/women.
Melvin P.>>

Then explain what you mean here.  Where in the Ehret writings all done in 
another era do you find the explanation for what is going on today, as 
people grow bigger and rounder?  We both agree that food today for the 
masses is largely processed garbage, but that's all the more reason to feel 
kind of depressed, is it not?  Why are you opposed to thinking that people 
might be depressed about such a depressing and inactive environment they are 
exposed to constantly, and might just gulp some of the big amcs and fries 
down as they feel sad much of the time?   Does one really need to know how 
the garbage is metabolized or to understand Marx's 1844 writings to see the 
link between depression and eating?  People are sad because it's a sad and 
atomized environment they live in. And they got a refrigerator or more to 
eat from while contemplating such..


FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 

More information about the Marxism mailing list