On Wed, Jul 31, 1996 10:07:20 AM, Samuel A. Chambers wrote:
>sb--
>
>I have to say, I think we are pretty much in agreement...
>
>Sam
>
Sam:
great.
a few things I think are important for someone trying to think in terms of
a Marxist Foucauldianism or vice versa:
1. be very suspicious of the question "is marxism valid/dead", and
especially avoid any attempt to answer that question with broad reaching
historical overviews. When the history of 20th century socialism is
posited as the litmus test for Marx work, we're in trouble.
2. be very suspicious of attempts to bring the two figures into agreement
only on the level of polemical reconcilliation. what needs to be addressed
is the internal workings of their varying historical and ontological views,
not the conflicting claims and objectives of marxist and foucauldian
theoretical camps.
3. avoid any confusion between foucault's analysis of the legacy of marxist
political thought and his analysis of Marx's historical ontology. (again, I
think derrida's book on marx is not on marx, its on the spectre of marx.
big difference).
sb
>sb--
>
>I have to say, I think we are pretty much in agreement...
>
>Sam
>
Sam:
great.
a few things I think are important for someone trying to think in terms of
a Marxist Foucauldianism or vice versa:
1. be very suspicious of the question "is marxism valid/dead", and
especially avoid any attempt to answer that question with broad reaching
historical overviews. When the history of 20th century socialism is
posited as the litmus test for Marx work, we're in trouble.
2. be very suspicious of attempts to bring the two figures into agreement
only on the level of polemical reconcilliation. what needs to be addressed
is the internal workings of their varying historical and ontological views,
not the conflicting claims and objectives of marxist and foucauldian
theoretical camps.
3. avoid any confusion between foucault's analysis of the legacy of marxist
political thought and his analysis of Marx's historical ontology. (again, I
think derrida's book on marx is not on marx, its on the spectre of marx.
big difference).
sb