On Sun, Jul 28, 1996 11:26:20 AM, Ross James Swanston wrote:
>There are
>forces at work which Marx never thought of and which show why capitalism
is
>unlikely to collapse.
>
james:
C'mon, really. Is it useful to dismiss "marxism" (what ever we might mean
by this term, which summarizes a long and incredibly prolific life's work,
along with zillions of innovative followers) on the basis of a loose survey
of 20th century class struggles? I think that your post, interesting and
perceptive as it is, makes the mistake of confusing Marx's historiography
with his philosophy of power (i.e. critique of capital) and dismisses the
later on flimsey evidence derived from the former.
Certainly it is true that totalizing critique should be interrogated and
its contradictions exposed, but when the critique of totalizing critique
becomes itself an orthodoxy, the result is, well, more totality.
My (very general) point is only that we shouldn't feel as if we have to
choose between Marx's teleological view of world history as a total system
and Foucault's approach to a genealogical history full of ruptures and
discontinuities. Why can't Capitalism be understood as a fragment with
it's own logics and structure, which Karl very cunningly uncovers?
Can you be more specific about which aspects of Marx you feel most
inadequate with regards to Foucault's analysis of power?
sb
>There are
>forces at work which Marx never thought of and which show why capitalism
is
>unlikely to collapse.
>
james:
C'mon, really. Is it useful to dismiss "marxism" (what ever we might mean
by this term, which summarizes a long and incredibly prolific life's work,
along with zillions of innovative followers) on the basis of a loose survey
of 20th century class struggles? I think that your post, interesting and
perceptive as it is, makes the mistake of confusing Marx's historiography
with his philosophy of power (i.e. critique of capital) and dismisses the
later on flimsey evidence derived from the former.
Certainly it is true that totalizing critique should be interrogated and
its contradictions exposed, but when the critique of totalizing critique
becomes itself an orthodoxy, the result is, well, more totality.
My (very general) point is only that we shouldn't feel as if we have to
choose between Marx's teleological view of world history as a total system
and Foucault's approach to a genealogical history full of ruptures and
discontinuities. Why can't Capitalism be understood as a fragment with
it's own logics and structure, which Karl very cunningly uncovers?
Can you be more specific about which aspects of Marx you feel most
inadequate with regards to Foucault's analysis of power?
sb