Re[8]: ethics and poststructuralism


There is an important, specifically Marxian point I beg to
differ with you on, and which I see as being central to at
least D&P. Marx never viewed history as a rational process.
His material conception of history consists in revealing the
logic and rationality of various systematic extractions of
surplus value. Capitalism, as the widest, most systematic
from of value extraction yet developed, certainly has a
logic and rationality - the logic of the marketplace, which
by iots nature is open and general. Foucault's advance of
htis notion is to look at the systematic extraction of all
sorts of values. The Panopticon developed out of an
"econoistic rationlity" one which was general both in its
scope and intent. In the classical age, a certain "surplus
value" was extracted by the king from hte rituals of
torture. In the modern age, the appropriation fo the
effects of the semio-techniques of power achieve a wider
distribution. in any case, Focuault is examining the logic
and rationlity which power/knowledge operates through. the
economy, in Focuault's case, consists in sets of social
effects. One can examine the material operations of
power/knowledge as rational, intentional systems without
making metaphysical claims about the logical unfolding, or
rationality of history. This, I claim, is a Marxian point.
Please clarify this for me, because I confess to being
fairly ignorant about Hegel's conception of history, but I
have always taken it to consist in a metaphysical claim
about the rationl unfolding of spirit. After Althusser, who
had a fairly large impact on F's thought, it's hard to read
Marx as a hegelian.


Partial thread listing: