re revolution

- I'de wanted to raise a possible point for discussion. It sounds like
'revolution as commodity' means that what was revolutionary is no longer:
which is perhaps why it is 'safe enough' to market. - with this in mind,
what would foucault have said, has written anything on the following
L. Dallenbach wrote on book on 'mise en abyme.' When I think about the
posts on revolution, I think back on Foucault's discussions of the
'Ce n'est pas une pipe.' As art and language - the aesthetic and the
knowable coalesced, is there a way in which, as a revolutionary position
looses its 'opposition,' and is 'absorbed or 'accepted,' commodified,
the commodity is like an aesthetic: the words don't matter. They are
incidental. Whether the commodity is about black issues against a white
society or queer issues against a straight society, if the revolution
has become a commodity, then it has gained some ground, because, as
a commodity, if the grammar remains, but the 'meaning' has lost it's
revolutionary punch, perhaps this is because the issues raised by the
rev' motivate its ability to be a commodity.

(when I say words don't matter - obviously the words ce n'est pas une
pipe are 'essential' to the aesthetic, to the art, but can this be
related to discussions of revolution as commodity?)
Partial thread listing: