Nicholas wrote
>
> Clearly you were responding to a possibility that you read into my
>statement, as I cannot see anything *in context* in what you have quoted
>of me, other than "alone," that suggests that I believe that it is
>illegitimate to use Foucault's ideas as a political tool.
>
> I don't care too much about the Zapatistas, for instance, as the
>problem in the region is not "capitalism" but corruption and too little
>local development. But if they want to use Foucault in their platform,
>fine by me. Incidentally, the Zapatistas must be some pretty
>well-educated rebels to be able to use an obscure French philosopher to
>get themselves all hot and bothered.
>
> Nicholas
>
Yes, I was merely responding to a possibility which is sometimes used
to dismiss Foucault's work. But there is nothing in my statement suggesting
that you believe it is illegitimate to use F.' ideas as a political tool.
So, as you
say, there was clearly nothing against you in particular in my response.
As to the Zapatistas, I don't think the corruption and too little local
development has nothing to do with capitalism. But even if the problem
were not capitalism, there would still be much to care about this movement.
I don't see why capitalism should be the only thing to care about .
As F. says there are different types of struggles (against forms of
domination, against eceonomic exploitation, against forms of subjectivity and
submission, and so on) and I personnaly care about all of them (just a personal
choice, of course).
I am glad to hear that Zapatistas' use of Foucault in their platform is fine
with you.
What I find interesting, however, is your description of F. as "an obscure
French
philosopher." That he is French would certainly be no obstacle on using his
ideas
in local struggles as Marx (who is German) was and is used all over the world.
That he is obscure must be your own personal judgement, for to many others
he is more or less accessible!
Ferda
>
> Clearly you were responding to a possibility that you read into my
>statement, as I cannot see anything *in context* in what you have quoted
>of me, other than "alone," that suggests that I believe that it is
>illegitimate to use Foucault's ideas as a political tool.
>
> I don't care too much about the Zapatistas, for instance, as the
>problem in the region is not "capitalism" but corruption and too little
>local development. But if they want to use Foucault in their platform,
>fine by me. Incidentally, the Zapatistas must be some pretty
>well-educated rebels to be able to use an obscure French philosopher to
>get themselves all hot and bothered.
>
> Nicholas
>
Yes, I was merely responding to a possibility which is sometimes used
to dismiss Foucault's work. But there is nothing in my statement suggesting
that you believe it is illegitimate to use F.' ideas as a political tool.
So, as you
say, there was clearly nothing against you in particular in my response.
As to the Zapatistas, I don't think the corruption and too little local
development has nothing to do with capitalism. But even if the problem
were not capitalism, there would still be much to care about this movement.
I don't see why capitalism should be the only thing to care about .
As F. says there are different types of struggles (against forms of
domination, against eceonomic exploitation, against forms of subjectivity and
submission, and so on) and I personnaly care about all of them (just a personal
choice, of course).
I am glad to hear that Zapatistas' use of Foucault in their platform is fine
with you.
What I find interesting, however, is your description of F. as "an obscure
French
philosopher." That he is French would certainly be no obstacle on using his
ideas
in local struggles as Marx (who is German) was and is used all over the world.
That he is obscure must be your own personal judgement, for to many others
he is more or less accessible!
Ferda