Re: Sociologist enthralled with AA

[Guest guest]

If AA was a people's movement, then why not Prohibition, too. But we know, thanks to and Rumbarger, that it was really a flexing of the Capitalist musculature over the worker, which I agree with. Levine, who edited Rumbarger, ought to be saavy enough to suspect that AA could have been manipulated into popularity by elite forces just like Prohibition.

Levine, for some reason, has been starstruck by AA. ]

All right. I just can't take this anymore. Before I am going to be willing to believe that some Capitalist Cabal "manipulated AA into popularity," whatever that might mean, I want the names of the specific capitalists who undertook this manipulating, exact descriptions and dates of their nefarious machinations, and evidence of who in AA were the purported unwitting dupes who carried out the Plot.

Who, what, when, where and how. Otherwise, the whole notion is just another example of conspiracy theory bilge.

Was some general council of Capitalists called, and they did some brainstorming and came up with AA as a majorly useful capitalist tool? Did they take a vote? Did they draft a 5-, 10-, or 20-year plan for their plot? Where is there any documentation at all that capitalists joined together in a concerted effort to promote AA as a means of controlling the worker? How did they control their membership, so that not one capitalist leaked the plot to anyone? Was secrecy demanded on pain of death? Why should anyone believe this conspiracy theory as opposed to that human society is capable of spontaneously generating silly and/or harmful movements and institutions?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona --

I'm not a walking bibliography (someone like would have exact

references at his fingertips), nor do I claim any " plot " -- but it's well known

that the Firestone, Rockefeller, and many other very wealthy and influential

" capitalist " families were prominent in spreading AA and the " disease " concept

to the American public. It's also known that Bill W. was no friend of unions --

it's in the " conference-approved " literature. Buchman, 's spiritual

mentor, was obsessively anti-Communist -- ranted about commies being the

" anti-Christ " -- and at that time it was common (though not necessarily

accurate) to accuse union organizers of being commies, and a threat to morality

and Mom and apple pie.

Surely you're familiar with the infamous " acceptance " passage of the Big

Book page 449 -- is it so hard to imagine that the big industry bosses would

simply LOVE for workers to embrace such a philosophy? " I can find no peace

until I accept that I need to change myself, not conditions in the world around

me... " or whatever that insidious page says -- spreading a " fellowship " that

espouses such a philosophy would certainly undermine support for unionism.

Think about it.

~Rita

> In a message dated 6/17/01 10:35:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> davetrippel@a... writes:

>

>

> > If AA was a people's movement, then why not Prohibition, too. But we know,

> > thanks to and Rumbarger, that it was really a flexing of the

> > Capitalist musculature over the worker, which I agree with. Levine, who

> > edited Rumbarger, ought to be saavy enough to suspect that AA could have

> > been manipulated into popularity by elite forces just like Prohibition.

> >

>

> All right. I just can't take this anymore. Before I am going to be willing

> to believe that some Capitalist Cabal " manipulated AA into popularity, "

> whatever that might mean, I want the names of the specific capitalists who

> undertook this manipulating, exact descriptions and dates of their nefarious

> machinations, and evidence of who in AA were the purported unwitting dupes

> who carried out the Plot.

>

> Who, what, when, where and how. Otherwise, the whole notion is just another

> example of conspiracy theory bilge.

>

> Was some general council of Capitalists called, and they did some

> brainstorming and came up with AA as a majorly useful capitalist tool? Did

> they take a vote? Did they draft a 5-, 10-, or 20-year plan for their

> plot? Where is there any documentation at all that capitalists joined

> together in a concerted effort to promote AA as a means of controlling the

> worker? How did they control their membership, so that not one capitalist

> leaked the plot to anyone? Was secrecy demanded on pain of death? Why

> should anyone believe this conspiracy theory as opposed to that human society

> is capable of spontaneously generating silly and/or harmful movements and

> institutions?

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

I'm not a walking bibliography (someone like would have exact references at his fingertips), nor do I claim any "plot" -- but it's well known that the Firestone, Rockefeller, and many other very wealthy and influential "capitalist" families were prominent in spreading AA and the "disease" concept to the American public. It's also known that Bill W. was no friend of unions -- it's in the "conference-approved" literature. Buchman, 's spiritual mentor, was obsessively anti-Communist -- ranted about commies being the "anti-Christ" -- and at that time it was common (though not necessarily accurate) to accuse union organizers of being commies, and a threat to morality and Mom and apple pie.

Surely you're familiar with the infamous "acceptance" passage of the Big Book page 449 -- is it so hard to imagine that the big industry bosses would simply LOVE for workers to embrace such a philosophy? "I can find no peace until I accept that I need to change myself, not conditions in the world around me..." or whatever that insidious page says -- spreading a "fellowship" that espouses such a philosophy would certainly undermine support for unionism. Think about it.

Rita, I have thought about it, and I still think it is horse doo-doo, no more sensible than the far-right kooks who rant and rave about International Jewish Bankers, the Trilateral Commission, and all that nonsense.

First, wealthy and prominent people have devastating problems with chemical addiction, too. Russel Firestone was a terrible and incorrigible drunk, and if his daddy was delighted with AA, just maybe that might be because for a time it appeard to resolve his son's path to self-destruction. Moreover, I do not read the passages in the BB to be a counsel to avoid labor activism, but rather to stop worrying about the things you don't like about the world, that you keep trying to control everything, and get sober anyway. For a drunk who was going to die if s/he did not focus solely on getting sober, that is very good advice. Dead people, after all, don't change squat.

Bill was DYING of drink. When he formed AA -- and however much you and I may dislike that program -- he was not seeking to promote the interests of capitalism, but rather to find a way to save his life, Rita. The kind of male, egocentric drunk he was did have a tendency to want the world to bend to his will, and he would drink when he felt the world was not kowtowing as he thought it should. AA is CORRECT to address that issue for THOSE KIND OF DRUNKS -- but not all drunks have such issues with ego or grandiosity, and particularly most women do not.

This is a matter of urgent personal salvation, and I doubt very much that it is one in which the personal was also political, in the way you suggest, or that insists is so. The multiple hospitalizations with DTs was hell for Bill, and he longed for release -- as any sane human being would.

And yes, Buchman was commie-phobic, which makes him no different from a whole lot of folks in his time. Watching what was happening in the Soviet Union at the time generated great fear, and the fact is, domestic American communists provided plenty of fodder to sustain that paranoia. Wonderful people such as Emma Goldman paid dearly for that. (I do not adhere to many of Goldman's views, but I admire her enormously for her unflinching integrity and intellectual honesty.)

No doubt Buchman's worldview was amenable to Bill, but it strikes me as absurd to think he embraced it in order to promote anti-communism or to sap the vigor of organized labor.

Bill was a hopeless DRUNK. He was going to DIE if he didn't find a way to deal with that problem, and he found it. I am aware of no evidence suggesting that anything but his desperate personal situation drove his promotion of AA. Nor am I aware that the wealthy people who funded his efforts did so primarily to thwart labor. They may have liked the message of AA for whatever they thought it would provide in that area -- altho I doubt it -- but it defies belief that they were not seriously concerned about alcoholism, which kills regardless of SES.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hi Mona.

Among others Henry Ford supported Prohibition up to a point. Rockefeller and the beverage industry supported AA in 1939. See:Ron Roizen: "The Discovery of Alcoholism in America."

I don't think it could be called a conspiracy the way you've described it. It's more a kind of compromise between somewhat different interests. Everybody got their share.

Bjørn

Re: Sociologist enthralled with AA

If AA was a people's movement, then why not Prohibition, too. But we know, thanks to and Rumbarger, that it was really a flexing of the Capitalist musculature over the worker, which I agree with. Levine, who edited Rumbarger, ought to be saavy enough to suspect that AA could have been manipulated into popularity by elite forces just like Prohibition. Levine, for some reason, has been starstruck by AA. ]All right. I just can't take this anymore. Before I am going to be willing to believe that some Capitalist Cabal "manipulated AA into popularity," whatever that might mean, I want the names of the specific capitalists who undertook this manipulating, exact descriptions and dates of their nefarious machinations, and evidence of who in AA were the purported unwitting dupes who carried out the Plot. Who, what, when, where and how. Otherwise, the whole notion is just another example of conspiracy theory bilge. Was some general council of Capitalists called, and they did some brainstorming and came up with AA as a majorly useful capitalist tool? Did they take a vote? Did they draft a 5-, 10-, or 20-year plan for their plot? Where is there any documentation at all that capitalists joined together in a concerted effort to promote AA as a means of controlling the worker? How did they control their membership, so that not one capitalist leaked the plot to anyone? Was secrecy demanded on pain of death? Why should anyone believe this conspiracy theory as opposed to that human society is capable of spontaneously generating silly and/or harmful movements and institutions? --Mona--

[Guest guest]

You repeat the "addiction is an equal opportunity [whatever]" fallacy of the steppers. While it is truth that rich ppl do become addicts, they are both less likely to suffer from addiction and are vastly more likely to recover from it. While most definitely not going down the It's-all-about-SES route that Diener does (which is why he hates me so much) any discussion of addiction that does not acknowledge and explain this disparity is flawed.

Actually, I did not state that fallacy, I am aware of it, and I reject it.

You can check this out for yourself in the Ab. alcoholism forum where a few consider me "elitist"for stating and defending the accuracy of this obvious fact. That is, intelligent, well-educated people are less prone to addiction, or to letting it ravage their lives, simply because they have so much more to lose, including a vibrant life of the mind.

Nevertheless, Russel Firestone (and I am 99% it is Russel, not Roland) was a drunk, and other wealthy people end up drunks/addicts as well, and I'm sure we could both name such persons who died as a result. Thus, even the rich and/or famous have a stake in finding resolution to this unhappy phenomenon.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

This should add a little to my other message on changes in AA:

At 12:33 PM 6/18/01 -0000, rita66@... wrote:

>

> Mona --

>

> I'm not a walking bibliography (someone like would have exact

references at his fingertips), nor do I claim any " plot " -- but it's well

known that the Firestone, Rockefeller, and many other very wealthy and

influential " capitalist " families were prominent in spreading AA and the

" disease " concept to the American public. It's also known that Bill W. was

no friend of unions -- it's in the " conference-approved " literature.

Buchman, 's spiritual mentor, was obsessively anti-Communist --

ranted about commies being the " anti-Christ " -- and at that time it was

common (though not necessarily accurate) to accuse union organizers of

being commies, and a threat to morality and Mom and apple pie.

>

> Surely you're familiar with the infamous " acceptance " passage of the

Big Book page 449 -- is it so hard to imagine that the big industry bosses

would simply LOVE for workers to embrace such a philosophy? " I can find no

peace until I accept that I need to change myself, not conditions in the

world around me... " or whatever that insidious page says -- spreading a

" fellowship " that espouses such a philosophy would certainly undermine

support for unionism.

There's a technical problem here, in that this is from the third edition

of the big book, published in 1975, and the words were written (as I

remember from a Grapevine article maybe five years ago by the author)

around 1973 or 1974 for a Grapevine article then.

If you're saying the thoughts behind these words existed in the

beginings of AA, I would agree, but I suspect that the sheep-like " humility "

that this passage promotes may not have been as strongly developed when

the program started (I'm certainly NOT saying it wasn't there - the 7th

step, as originally written by , read " Humbly, on our knees, asked

Him to remove our shortcomings " ).

It's ironic that it gets quoted so much, many AA'ers think it has

been in ALL the editions of the big book, and if they find out otherwise,

they then think it's so important that it SHOULD BE in all editions.

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

> First, wealthy and prominent people have devastating problems with

>chemical addiction, too. Russel Firestone was a terrible and

>incorrigible drunk, and if his daddy was delighted with AA, just

>maybe that might be because for a time it appeard to resolve his

>son's path to self-destruction.

Fwiw, I think it was *Roland* Firestone.

You repeat the " addiction is an equal opportunity [whatever] " fallacy

of the steppers. While it is truth that rich ppl do become addicts,

they are both less likely to suffer from addiction and are vastly more

likely to recover from it. While most definitely not going down the

It's-all-about-SES route that Diener does (which is why he hates me so

much) any discussion of addiction that does not acknowledge and

explain this disparity is flawed. It is possible that severe

alcoholism in males does have a genetic component, and while this will

not explain all the Roland Firestones (since we do not know his

personal history at this point) it may explain some of them. The

early AA's do seem to have all been very severe and were almost

exclusively male - quite possibly many of them had strong genetic

components to their alcoholism, particularly those from the

professional classes like and . Firestone Snr may have

had a motivation to smile on AA, but that does not explain the

benevolence of Getty and the other rich worthies whose help AA

sought. Also, it is interesting that Getty was quick to throw a

damper on the thought of significant financial help - for which AA is

now grovelling grateful. That didnt stop the 1930s Fortune 500 taking

a keen interest in AA however; iirc many of these guys became the

non-alcoholic members of AA's Board of Trustees, the actual governing

body of AA, who originally outnumbered the alcoholic members 14:7.

writes quite freely how the early AA's saw steppism as a way to

resolve disputes between labor and capital in the 12 & 12. It wasnt by

collective negotiation - it was by mutual observance of God's will.

Early AA was part of the Oxford Group Movement for several years,

which included Henry Ford, whose opposition to unions remains

notorious.

By portraying alcoholism as a disease that slotted neatly

ideologically into where " Original Sin " lies in christianity, with an

ultra-conservative christian-style philosophy of confession,

repentance, and penance, and acceptance of their lot in life as

God's Will for whoch one should be grateful, which completely ignored

socioeconomic factors in alcoholism or any other problem that might

beset its members, AA must have seen literally like God's gift to the

Firestones and Gettys of America.

Even in modern times, someone like Rita falls victim not only to

coercion to a religious program for a problem she does not have, but

the AA-based EAP's welcomed into the corporations of America are on

the look out for any kind of uppitiness that might make them a

nuisance.

In this particular instance, the role of the elite in the nurturing

the growth of AA for their own ends is extremely easy to find.

P.

Moreover, I

> do not read the passages in the BB to be a counsel to avoid labor

activism,

> but rather to stop worrying about the things you don't like about

the world,

> that you keep trying to control everything, and get sober anyway.

For a drunk

> who was going to die if s/he did not focus solely on getting sober,

that is

> very good advice. Dead people, after all, don't change squat.

>

> Bill was DYING of drink. When he formed AA -- and however

much you

> and I may dislike that program -- he was not seeking to promote the

interests

> of capitalism, but rather to find a way to save his life, Rita. The

kind of

> male, egocentric drunk he was did have a tendency to want the world

to bend

> to his will, and he would drink when he felt the world was not

kowtowing as

> he thought it should. AA is CORRECT to address that issue for THOSE

KIND OF

> DRUNKS -- but not all drunks have such issues with ego or

grandiosity, and

> particularly most women do not.

>

> This is a matter of urgent personal salvation, and I doubt very much

that it

> is one in which the personal was also political, in the way you

suggest, or

> that insists is so. The multiple hospitalizations with DTs was

hell for

> Bill, and he longed for release -- as any sane human being would.

>

> And yes, Buchman was commie-phobic, which makes him no different

from a whole

> lot of folks in his time. Watching what was happening in the Soviet

Union at

> the time generated great fear, and the fact is, domestic American

communists

> provided plenty of fodder to sustain that paranoia. Wonderful people

such as

> Emma Goldman paid dearly for that. (I do not adhere to many of

Goldman's

> views, but I admire her enormously for her unflinching integrity and

> intellectual honesty.)

> No doubt Buchman's worldview was amenable to Bill, but it strikes me

as

> absurd to think he embraced it in order to promote anti-communism or

to sap

> the vigor of organized labor.

>

> Bill was a hopeless DRUNK. He was going to DIE if he didn't find a

way to

> deal with that problem, and he found it. I am aware of no evidence

> suggesting that anything but his desperate personal situation drove

his

> promotion of AA. Nor am I aware that the wealthy people who funded

his

> efforts did so primarily to thwart labor. They may have liked the

message of

> AA for whatever they thought it would provide in that area -- altho

I doubt

> it -- but it defies belief that they were not seriously concerned

about

> alcoholism, which kills regardless of SES.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hi Ben

Although it may not have been included in the BB until 1975,

neverthless I believe this story is from one of the " oldtimers " who

was there from very early on. This guy addressed the 21st Assembly of

AA and hence presumably was considered an important, influential

member (the fact he was a doc gave him some clout of course).

That the attitude expressed in the passage was common in AA is

extremely obvious. The 12 & 12 is riddled with it. " We prayed for

healthy children, and got sick ones, or none at all " is a phrase that

comes to mind immediately (admittedly this too is a later work).

As I've said before, it is ironic but in London at least most OA

meetings end with this passage, mendaciously doctored, in the finest

of traditions, to read like it was written by an overeater. In

reality the author in his speech to the 21st assembly ridiculed OA as

" Fatties Anonymous " and said that while diet clubs might be a good

idea, any suggestion that overeaters needed a 12 step program was

ridiculous.

I like to point this out at OA meetings a lot, but they dont believe

me - or give a fuck. What the Children of God called " Hevenly

Deception " is second nature to steppism.

P.

>

> There's a technical problem here, in that this is from the third

edition

> of the big book, published in 1975, and the words were written (as I

> remember from a Grapevine article maybe five years ago by the

author)

> around 1973 or 1974 for a Grapevine article then.

> If you're saying the thoughts behind these words existed in the

> beginings of AA, I would agree, but I suspect that the sheep-like

" humility "

> that this passage promotes may not have been as strongly developed

when

> the program started (I'm certainly NOT saying it wasn't there - the

7th

> step, as originally written by , read " Humbly, on our knees,

asked

> Him to remove our shortcomings " ).

> It's ironic that it gets quoted so much, many AA'ers think it has

> been in ALL the editions of the big book, and if they find out

otherwise,

> they then think it's so important that it SHOULD BE in all editions.

>

> ----------

> http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

Sorry , I didn't know at first either -- SES = SocioEconomic Status. I try to avoid the shit that makes others "feel stupid," and didn't do it purposely. Not long ago, I had to ask, too.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> That is, intelligent, well-educated people are less prone to

>addiction,

> or to letting it ravage their lives, simply because they have so

>much more to

> lose, including a vibrant life of the mind.

I didnt refer to ppl's intelligence or educational level, I referred

to their wealth. Actually I think intelligence is probably only

slightly inversely correlated with addiction, thorough being

fairly positively correlated with educational level, which itself is

fairly positively correlated with SES. Although wealth will have a

direct influence, perhaps of greater importance is the social status

wealth provides. When SES is factored out, possibly no correlation

with intelligence or education level remains.

>

> Nevertheless, Russel Firestone (and I am 99% it is Russel, not

>Roland) was a drunk, and other wealthy people end up drunks/addicts

>as well, and I'm sure we could both name such persons who died as a

>result. Thus, even the rich and/or famous have a stake in finding

>resolution to this unhappy phenomenon.

Russel*l* I think it turns out to be. While it is true that some

wealthy do have some stake in finding a solution, it is only one that

need help them and not other ppl. If their greatest protection

against addiction is their power, it remains in their interest to not

only perpetuate it but to consolidate it. If a social phenomonon such

as AA sobered up 1000 rich alcoholics at the expense of a million poor

ones, it would be in their interest to pursue this option.

Since econnomic factors are presumably not involved when the rich

become addicted, then the problem presumably lies in either biology or

their own psychosocial milieu. Here we enter issues around child and

spousal abuse, one which nobody is motivated to open up about in their

own house, especially the perpetrators among the great and the good.

Far better to view the whole thing as a disease remitted by divene

redemption and a virtuous life.

P.

[Guest guest]

Mona..not to ask, when one does not know, is stupidity.

Agreed, It took me quite some time to figure out what the hell IIRC meant.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> Hi Mona.

>

>

> I don't think it could be called a conspiracy the way you've

>described it. It's more a kind of compromise between somewhat

>different interests. Everybody got their share.

AA grew in a particular historical and social mileu. It prospered in

large part because it " fit " the ideological and economic interests of

powerful forces in American society. First, the disease model which

restricted alcohol problems to the small minority of heavy drinkers

was congruent with the economic interests of the alcohol industry.

Promoting AA helped to innoculate against a revival of the temperance

movement. Second, the " higher power " /spiritual dimension of AA was

perfect for the Cold War era when the US confronted an " atheistic "

Soviet Union. Third, the stress on individual redemption rather than

collective social action was an outlook which capitalists certainly

wished to promote.

L. White's SLAYING THE DRAGON, (pp. 194-195)provides some

intriguing details which show that AA got plenty of funding from the

liquor industry in the early days.

" Those fledging post-repeal organizations concerned with alcohol

problems that did not accept money from the alcohol beverage industry

became extinct. The three primary agencies profiled in this chapter --

the RCPA, the Yale Center on Alcohol Studies, and the NCEA--all

accepted contributions from the alcohol industry... "

" ...alcohol represntatives were ever present, monitoring and,

where possible, participating in activities of the post-repeal

organizations that focused on alcohol-related problems....at the

1943 RCPA conference...

" The industry saw Alcoholics Anonymous as a potential ally

because the organization focused on a small percentage of late-stage

drinkers and had little so say about the drinking habits of most

Americans... "

" Alcohol representatives sat on national and local alcoholism

councils across the country...Their presence helped to sustain a

focus on the alcoholic as a biologically vulnerable individual, and

to divert public attention from the wider problems created by alcohol

in the culture. "

alcohol representatives on the RCPA board objected to the

term " alcoholism, " and the RCPA adopted the industry's preferred term

of " problem drinker "

IIRC, and AA got plenty of puff pieces from the same

reactionary press lords who made Graham the country's leading

preacher.

Mona commented, " Before I am going to be willing to believe that

some Capitalist Cabal " manipulated AA into popularity, " whatever that

might mean, I want the names of the specific capitalists who

undertook this manipulating, exact descriptions and dates of their

nefarious machinations, and evidence of who in AA were the purported

unwitting dupes who carried out the Plot. "

Okay, one specific capitalist Brinkley ers, an IBM, heir

provided over $40 million in funding for the AA institutional

infrastructure.

Second, remember that AA grew out of the Oxford movement. Its

founders believed that the were God-controlled and that they,

therefore, had the solution to all problems.

I close with the caveat that I am not necessarily endorsing the

capitalist manipulation of AA theory at least not as defined by Mona.

[Guest guest]

What does "SES" mean??

Original Message -----

From: MonaHolland@...

To: 12-step-free

Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 5:36 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Sociologist enthralled with AA

You repeat the "addiction is an equal opportunity [whatever]" fallacy of the steppers. While it is truth that rich ppl do become addicts, they are both less likely to suffer from addiction and are vastly more likely to recover from it. While most definitely not going down the It's-all-about-SES route that Diener does (which is why he hates me so much) any discussion of addiction that does not acknowledge and explain this disparity is flawed.Actually, I did not state that fallacy, I am aware of it, and I reject it. You can check this out for yourself in the Ab. alcoholism forum where a few consider me "elitist"for stating and defending the accuracy of this obvious fact. That is, intelligent, well-educated people are less prone to addiction, or to letting it ravage their lives, simply because they have so much more to lose, including a vibrant life of the mind. Nevertheless, Russel Firestone (and I am 99% it is Russel, not Roland) was a drunk, and other wealthy people end up drunks/addicts as well, and I'm sure we could both name such persons who died as a result. Thus, even the rich and/or famous have a stake in finding resolution to this unhappy phenomenon. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

On a secluded hill at the highest spot in tony Fairlawn Heights, this hidden

remnant of the glory days of the Firestone rubber empire is a place where

ghosts are said to roam and a spirit-seer holds seances to commune with the

dead. The best-known of the ghosts is that of Firestone, who once

called this place home.

The second son of tire-company founder Harvey Firestone moved into the

property he named Cornus Hill in 1937, at the height of the Depression. It

was a true rubber magnate's showplace, with 31 sparkling rooms and a

156-foot brick facade surrounded by 13 acres of terraces and gardens

The above indicates that was correct...got this from.....Published

Sunday, October 29, 2000,

in the Akron Beacon Journal.

Re: Sociologist enthralled with AA

>

>

> > That is, intelligent, well-educated people are less prone to

> >addiction,

> > or to letting it ravage their lives, simply because they have so

> >much more to

> > lose, including a vibrant life of the mind.

>

> I didnt refer to ppl's intelligence or educational level, I referred

> to their wealth. Actually I think intelligence is probably only

> slightly inversely correlated with addiction, thorough being

> fairly positively correlated with educational level, which itself is

> fairly positively correlated with SES. Although wealth will have a

> direct influence, perhaps of greater importance is the social status

> wealth provides. When SES is factored out, possibly no correlation

> with intelligence or education level remains.

>

> >

> > Nevertheless, Russel Firestone (and I am 99% it is Russel, not

> >Roland) was a drunk, and other wealthy people end up drunks/addicts

> >as well, and I'm sure we could both name such persons who died as a

> >result. Thus, even the rich and/or famous have a stake in finding

> >resolution to this unhappy phenomenon.

>

> Russel*l* I think it turns out to be. While it is true that some

> wealthy do have some stake in finding a solution, it is only one that

> need help them and not other ppl. If their greatest protection

> against addiction is their power, it remains in their interest to not

> only perpetuate it but to consolidate it. If a social phenomonon such

> as AA sobered up 1000 rich alcoholics at the expense of a million poor

> ones, it would be in their interest to pursue this option.

>

> Since econnomic factors are presumably not involved when the rich

> become addicted, then the problem presumably lies in either biology or

> their own psychosocial milieu. Here we enter issues around child and

> spousal abuse, one which nobody is motivated to open up about in their

> own house, especially the perpetrators among the great and the good.

> Far better to view the whole thing as a disease remitted by divene

> redemption and a virtuous life.

>

> P.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mona..not to ask, when one does not know, is stupidity.

Re: Re: Sociologist enthralled with AA

Sorry , I didn't know at first either -- SES = SocioEconomic Status. I try to avoid the shit that makes others "feel stupid," and didn't do it purposely. Not long ago, I had to ask, too. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

WhatisIIRC?

Re: Re: Sociologist enthralled with AA

Mona..not to ask, when one does not know, is stupidity. Agreed, It took me quite some time to figure out what the hell IIRC meant. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona commented, "Before I am going to be willing to believe that some Capitalist Cabal "manipulated AA into popularity," whatever that might mean, I want the names of the specific capitalists who undertook this manipulating, exact descriptions and dates of their nefarious machinations, and evidence of who in AA were the purported unwitting dupes who carried out the Plot."

Okay, one specific capitalist Brinkley ers, an IBM, heir provided over $40 million in funding for the AA institutional infrastructure.

But simply practicing philanthropy is not evidence of "manipulating" AA into popularity, as a means to control and neutralize potential activism among the working class. Why could it not be the case that Mr. ers sincerely wished to promote recovery from alcohol dependency among those who were otherwise going to die miserable deaths? Where is the evidence that Mr. ers was, intent on and motivated by a class-wide goal of conquering labor via AA?

Some rich people have, as anyone else does, altruistic impulses, you know.

Carnegie gave us libraries throughout America, and thereby provided a whole world to poor people whose horizons were thereby made much wider.

But perhaps and others have some sort of spin on Carnegie that transforms the library philanthropy into an evil, self-interested ploy to...do what?

Second, remember that AA grew out of the Oxford movement. Its founders believed that the were God-controlled and that they, therefore, had the solution to all problems.

Yes, and that is why I did it preposterous when AA today deny the religiosity of their program, which is only slightly diluted Oxfordism. But that still does not mean that AA has been a capitalist tool of conscious and concerted effort to deploy it as a weapon in class warfare. I still await evidence that this is true.

BTW, a number of wealthy Jewish bankers did fund Nazi Germany. Does this mean, as some wackos claim, that "the Jews" wanted the Holocaust to occur, so they could make political hay with it?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona --

It needn't be an " either-or " thing. Perhaps the wealthy and powerful AA

promoters did sincerely care about helping " alcoholics " -- but perhaps they were

PARTICULARLY enamored of 12-step/Oxford ideology to achieve this " help " because

of its encouragement of " powerlessness " and self-involvement rather than

activism.

But let's say you're right that early powerful promoters of AA did not for

a second see 12-step philosophy as beneficial in discouraging unionizing or

rabblerousing. Today, however, when there are many different paths working

folks can take to sobriety and self-improvement, 12-step involvement is not only

being actively promoted, but being coerced. You personally were free to choose

the Lifering path, with its message of self-empowerment -- I and countless

others were not. In many working-class scenarios (not just talking about

drinking problems here), any suggestion by the worker of their own autonomy,

competence, maturity, and capability of solving problems is not only dismissed,

but punished. As you know, 12-step ideology is diametrically opposed to such

concepts, while Lifering, SMART, RR, and professional therapy all promote these.

And 12-step involvement is what is coerced. Sobriety is _obviously_ not the

issue when someone is FORBIDDEN from being sober without 12-step involvement.

So if you believe that the early promotion of AA to the masses was totally

for a benevolent " let's help the poor alcoholic " purpose and devoid of any

political agenda to encourage " powerlessness " and " acceptance " , when do you

believe this changed -- and why?

~Rita

> In a message dated 6/19/01 3:29:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> stuart323@a... writes:

>

>

> > Mona commented, " Before I am going to be willing to believe that

> > some Capitalist Cabal " manipulated AA into popularity, " whatever that

> > might mean, I want the names of the specific capitalists who

> > undertook this manipulating, exact descriptions and dates of their

> > nefarious machinations, and evidence of who in AA were the purported

> > unwitting dupes who carried out the Plot. "

> >

> > Okay, one specific capitalist Brinkley ers, an IBM, heir

> > provided over $40 million in funding for the AA institutional

> > infrastructure.

> >

> But simply practicing philanthropy is not evidence of " manipulating " AA into

> popularity, as a means to control and neutralize potential activism among the

> working class. Why could it not be the case that Mr. ers sincerely

> wished to promote recovery from alcohol dependency among those who were

> otherwise going to die miserable deaths? Where is the evidence that Mr.

> ers was, intent on and motivated by a class-wide goal of conquering

> labor via AA?

>

> Some rich people have, as anyone else does, altruistic impulses, you know.

> Carnegie gave us libraries throughout America, and thereby provided a

> whole world to poor people whose horizons were thereby made much wider.

>

> But perhaps and others have some sort of spin on Carnegie that

> transforms the library philanthropy into an evil, self-interested ploy

> to...do what?

>

>

> > Second, remember that AA grew out of the Oxford movement. Its

> > founders believed that the were God-controlled and that they,

> > therefore, had the solution to all problems.

> >

>

>

> Yes, and that is why I did it preposterous when AA today deny the religiosity

> of their program, which is only slightly diluted Oxfordism. But that still

> does not mean that AA has been a capitalist tool of conscious and concerted

> effort to deploy it as a weapon in class warfare. I still await evidence

> that this is true.

>

> BTW, a number of wealthy Jewish bankers did fund Nazi Germany. Does this

> mean, as some wackos claim, that " the Jews " wanted the Holocaust to occur, so

> they could make political hay with it?

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Rita,

Very well said.

wrote in the 12 Steps and the 12 Traditions, " It occurred to

us that we could take what we had into the factories and cause

laborers and capitalists to love each other. "

Hazeldon's website has a Buchman magazine from the late 1930s

entitled THE RISING TIDE which presses that message with what can

only be described as " proto-fascist " iconography.

> > In a message dated 6/19/01 3:29:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > stuart323@a... writes:

> >

> >

> > > Mona commented, " Before I am going to be willing to believe

that

> > > some Capitalist Cabal " manipulated AA into popularity, "

whatever that

> > > might mean, I want the names of the specific capitalists who

> > > undertook this manipulating, exact descriptions and dates of

their

> > > nefarious machinations, and evidence of who in AA were the

purported

> > > unwitting dupes who carried out the Plot. "

> > >

> > > Okay, one specific capitalist Brinkley ers, an IBM, heir

> > > provided over $40 million in funding for the AA institutional

> > > infrastructure.

> > >

> > But simply practicing philanthropy is not evidence

of " manipulating " AA into

> > popularity, as a means to control and neutralize potential

activism among the

> > working class. Why could it not be the case that Mr. ers

sincerely

> > wished to promote recovery from alcohol dependency among those

who were

> > otherwise going to die miserable deaths? Where is the evidence

that Mr.

> > ers was, intent on and motivated by a class-wide goal of

conquering

> > labor via AA?

> >

> > Some rich people have, as anyone else does, altruistic impulses,

you know.

> > Carnegie gave us libraries throughout America, and thereby

provided a

> > whole world to poor people whose horizons were thereby made much

wider.

> >

> > But perhaps and others have some sort of spin on Carnegie

that

> > transforms the library philanthropy into an evil, self-interested

ploy

> > to...do what?

> >

> >

> > > Second, remember that AA grew out of the Oxford movement.

Its

> > > founders believed that the were God-controlled and that they,

> > > therefore, had the solution to all problems.

> > >

> >

> >

> > Yes, and that is why I did it preposterous when AA today deny the

religiosity

> > of their program, which is only slightly diluted Oxfordism. But

that still

> > does not mean that AA has been a capitalist tool of conscious and

concerted

> > effort to deploy it as a weapon in class warfare. I still await

evidence

> > that this is true.

> >

> > BTW, a number of wealthy Jewish bankers did fund Nazi Germany.

Does this

> > mean, as some wackos claim, that " the Jews " wanted the Holocaust

to occur, so

> > they could make political hay with it?

> >

> > --Mona--

[Guest guest]

I'd like to add something here. Stuart mentioned Brinkley ers -- and

Mona asked " Why could it not be the case that Mr. ers sincerely wished to

promote recovery from alcohol dependency among those who were otherwise going to

die miserable deaths? Where is the evidence that Mr. ers was, intent on

and motivated by a class-wide goal of conquering labor via AA? "

ers, and the ers family, were instrumental in widely promoting

EAP's in industry. There is no need to use absurd rhetoric like " class-wide

goal of conquering labor via AA " -- how about just looking at the reality of

what EAP's are and what they do to workers. ers was himself a recovered

alcoholic -- but with his family money and connections, he NEVER was manipulated

or made to feel " powerless. " Yet he envisioned and helped start a system of

EAP's, whose raison d'etre is to coerce workers into 12-step involvement and

" internalization " of 12-step philosophy -- and being backed by, and often part

of, company managements, EAP's can use harsh management " disicipline " such as

extended suspension without pay, demotion, etc. as leverage to achieve their

goals.

It is absolutely myopic to claim that EAP's only motivation is " helping

alcoholics. " EAP's are in fact in the forefront of organized efforts to " raise

the bottom " of who gets to be labeled " powerless alcoholics " -- to the point

where workers such as myself are labeled as such and mandated to intensive

12-step " treatments " for a single positive Breathalyzer -- without coming within

a zillion light years of meeting the criteria for alcohol dependence or likely

to " die a miserable death " from alcoholism.

In our EAP program guidelines it specifically says that employees mandated

to their " treatment " must have their activities outside of the tx " curtailed " --

people are, in other words, not permitted to take on substitute work, even

part-time work -- yet while in the tx they are suspended without pay for a

minimum of 5 months. This is SPECIFICALLY designed to maximize " powerlessness "

-- the EAP director has actually laughed at people who have been forced to go on

Welfare or give up their homes and move back in with their parents because of

his mandate to be without income. The idea is to MAKE SURE everyone " hits

bottom " so they will finally accept Step ideology -- and the bottom is

artificially created. Before being allowed back to work, employees are told

they should be " grateful " to the EAP for " helping " them -- I refused to demean

myself this way and was told I have a " bad attitude " .

Powerlessness, gratitude, humility, acceptance -- all 12-step concepts, all

pushed on workers in the crudest and most manipulative ways by EAP's, as

envisioned by ers.

~Rita

> > In a message dated 6/19/01 3:29:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > stuart323@a... writes:

> >

> >

> > > Mona commented, " Before I am going to be willing to believe that

> > > some Capitalist Cabal " manipulated AA into popularity, " whatever that

> > > might mean, I want the names of the specific capitalists who

> > > undertook this manipulating, exact descriptions and dates of their

> > > nefarious machinations, and evidence of who in AA were the purported

> > > unwitting dupes who carried out the Plot. "

> > >

> > > Okay, one specific capitalist Brinkley ers, an IBM, heir

> > > provided over $40 million in funding for the AA institutional

> > > infrastructure.

> > >

> > But simply practicing philanthropy is not evidence of " manipulating " AA into

> > popularity, as a means to control and neutralize potential activism among

the

> > working class. Why could it not be the case that Mr. ers sincerely

> > wished to promote recovery from alcohol dependency among those who were

> > otherwise going to die miserable deaths? Where is the evidence that Mr.

> > ers was, intent on and motivated by a class-wide goal of conquering

> > labor via AA?

> >

> > Some rich people have, as anyone else does, altruistic impulses, you know.

> > Carnegie gave us libraries throughout America, and thereby provided a

> > whole world to poor people whose horizons were thereby made much wider.

> >

> > But perhaps and others have some sort of spin on Carnegie that

> > transforms the library philanthropy into an evil, self-interested ploy

> > to...do what?

> >

> >

> > > Second, remember that AA grew out of the Oxford movement. Its

> > > founders believed that the were God-controlled and that they,

> > > therefore, had the solution to all problems.

> > >

> >

> >

> > Yes, and that is why I did it preposterous when AA today deny the

religiosity

> > of their program, which is only slightly diluted Oxfordism. But that still

> > does not mean that AA has been a capitalist tool of conscious and concerted

> > effort to deploy it as a weapon in class warfare. I still await evidence

> > that this is true.

> >

> > BTW, a number of wealthy Jewish bankers did fund Nazi Germany. Does this

> > mean, as some wackos claim, that " the Jews " wanted the Holocaust to occur,

so

> > they could make political hay with it?

> >

> > --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona shows no knowlegdge of Carnegy's life or social

theory. (See Carnegy's autobiography, and also Wall's biography,

Carnegie, 1970, Oxford U., which is the best of several.)

The construction of libraries was an openly-stated attempt to

combat unionism and political radicalism. A particularly readable

account of Carnegy's dedication of the library at Homestead, Pa., in

1898, is included in Serrin's, 1992, Homestead: The Glory and

Tragedy of a Steel Town.

In his dedication speech at Homestead, Carnegie described the town

as locked in a great culture war, a war between the materialistic

forces of the outside agitators (union organizers), and those of his

own company, which represented Americanism and spiritual values. The

library was to be the cultural center of the town, he said, in which

would be fomented Carnegy's vision of a spiritual fellowship between

the workers and the higher powers (see Carnegy's 'The Gospel of

Wealth' for a particularly striking use of 'spiritual' language in

describing the role of the higher powers in corportion America).

The library building included a swimming pool, meeting rooms, a

gym, a running track, and was staffed by Carnegie-steel loyalists.

It was to dominate the town's new culture. Carnegie contrasted the

new culture which the library and its staff would head with the

deadly materialism of unionism. And he talked about the strike of

six years earlier.

Carnegie, and his partner, Henry Frick, had sent in 300 heavily-

armed Pinkerton men to break the strike. A deadly gun-battle had

erupted, and 8 workers died. But resistance was not crushed until

the Pennsylvania militia occupied the town. Union organizers and

supporters - several thousand in total - then were fired and

blackballed. Scabs were brought in. The corporation declared a " no

union " policy, stating that it would " defend " the " freedom " of the

workers against the " materialism " of radical union organizers.

Carnegy's network of spies and company police was expanded,

bringing discipline to this 'utopia'. The workday continued at 12-

hours, with 13 days worked in every 14, but wages were slashed an

average of 30%. Most of the town had no running water. The stream

which ran through Homestead carried raw sewage to the Monongahela.

But " materialistic " improvements were of little interest to the

company; instead, it focused on 'spiritual' values:

" The gift of the library was representative of the ways in which,

after the 1892 strike, the Carnegie Company worked to establish

control in Homestead and other steel towns. The company men knew it

was not enought to break the union; the towns themselves had to be

broken. The company strove diligently to seize the institutions of

community life - newspapers, churches, schools, social clubs, police,

municipal government. Only by doing this could they insure that

unionism would not rise again. " (Serrin, p. 164).

> In a message dated 6/19/01 3:29:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> stuart323@a... writes:

>

>

> > Mona commented, " Before I am going to be willing to believe that

> > some Capitalist Cabal " manipulated AA into popularity, " whatever

that

> > might mean, I want the names of the specific capitalists who

> > undertook this manipulating, exact descriptions and dates of

their

> > nefarious machinations, and evidence of who in AA were the

purported

> > unwitting dupes who carried out the Plot. "

> >

> > Okay, one specific capitalist Brinkley ers, an IBM, heir

> > provided over $40 million in funding for the AA institutional

> > infrastructure.

> >

> But simply practicing philanthropy is not evidence

of " manipulating " AA into

> popularity, as a means to control and neutralize potential activism

among the

> working class. Why could it not be the case that Mr. ers

sincerely

> wished to promote recovery from alcohol dependency among those who

were

> otherwise going to die miserable deaths? Where is the evidence

that Mr.

> ers was, intent on and motivated by a class-wide goal of

conquering

> labor via AA?

>

> Some rich people have, as anyone else does, altruistic impulses,

you know.

> Carnegie gave us libraries throughout America, and thereby

provided a

> whole world to poor people whose horizons were thereby made much

wider.

>

> But perhaps and others have some sort of spin on Carnegie that

> transforms the library philanthropy into an evil, self-interested

ploy

> to...do what?

>

>

> > Second, remember that AA grew out of the Oxford movement. Its

> > founders believed that the were God-controlled and that they,

> > therefore, had the solution to all problems.

> >

>

>

> Yes, and that is why I did it preposterous when AA today deny the

religiosity

> of their program, which is only slightly diluted Oxfordism. But

that still

> does not mean that AA has been a capitalist tool of conscious and

concerted

> effort to deploy it as a weapon in class warfare. I still await

evidence

> that this is true.

>

> BTW, a number of wealthy Jewish bankers did fund Nazi Germany.

Does this

> mean, as some wackos claim, that " the Jews " wanted the Holocaust to

occur, so

> they could make political hay with it?

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

WhatisIIRC?

Aparently, it means "if I recall correctly."

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hello,

I'm sure you've been answered by now, but, Socio-Economic-Status.

Another word (grouping) I've yet to see defined well, though I've

used it myself.

Sort of like:

addiction/addict

pornography

child

abuse

pleasure

alcoholic

sex

and a whole host of others!

[Guest guest]

Hi Rita,

The idea is to MAKE SURE

everyone " hits bottom " so they will finally accept Step ideology --

and the bottom is artificially created. Before being allowed back to

work, employees are told they should be " grateful " to the EAP for

" helping " them -- I refused to demean myself this way and was told I

have a " bad attitude " .

It has taken me a long time to see that this is what happened to me at

my last jobsite. I had the " choice " of being unemployed, or following

the program. Yet, I had enought guilt about some things that were

going on, that I saw the program as a way out and I bought into it

instead of fighting it. But I had *never* missed work. I had *never*

showed up drunk or stoned. I had excellent reviews. What happened to

me was not based on objective evidence to say the least.

[Guest guest]

Rita tells us something that gives me the absolute willies, " In our EAP program

guidelines

it specifically says that employees mandated to their " treatment " must have

their

activities outside of the tx " curtailed " -- people are, in other words, not

permitted to

take on substitute work, even part-time work -- yet while in the tx they are

suspended

without pay for a minimum of 5 months. This is SPECIFICALLY designed to

maximize

" powerlessness " -- the EAP director has actually laughed at people who have been

forced to

go on Welfare or give up their homes and move back in with their parents because

of his

mandate to be without income. "

This is a horror! Rita, this really blows me away! These clowns have the right

to forbid

you to earn a living?

I do get that you wanted to keep your job, that particular job. And not working

was what

you had to do to keep that particular job.

But what happens to people who leave that job rather than go into treatment?

What happens

to someone who says, " If that's what it take, then to hell with the job. I'll

go and look

for work elsewhere, " and simply quits?

Does the EAP at one particular job have the power to follow a person around

prevent that

person from finding work somewhere else? Can the EAP insure that a person will

never get

work anywhere else until that person has capitulated?

Regards,

nz

Are such people blackballed?