TOM DILLINGHAM wrote:
>
> I guess the surprise is not so much finding standard rightwing ideological
> cant on a Foucault list but that it should be coupled with such
> astonishing ignorance of even 20th century history, not to mention
> the relevant writings (from Hegel/Marx on) that underpin necessarily
> any such discussion. Simplistic bombast is not exactly foreign to
> Foucault discussion, and certainly not to people who confuse
> Marxism with communism and socialism and the Gulag, but it has not
> been so common on this list before.
> Tom Dillingham
Has this list always been hegemonized by old fucking communists? Why is
it that marxists so frequently accuse anyone who disagrees with their
analysis of being right wing? So stonewall, feminism and black power,
not to mention semiological guerilla warfare, the Greens and the
autonomists weren't radical?
The simplistic bombast about the mighty socialist motherland began with
the trite remark that the internal policies of the USSR were preferable
to contemporary Russian gangsterism. Tell that to the masses in Moscow
honey and see how they respond.
Isn't this exactly what Foucault was talking about in his critique of
exclusionism? Just to spell things out - many self identified marxists
have been left-liberal subversives too (Gramsci for example) - but their
liberal commitment to freedom has often put them as much at odds with
their comrades on the Communist Left as with the authoritarian Right.
By branding even bare mention of the tyranny of stalinism as right wing,
these dialectians, as opposed to dialogists (Levinas mean anything to
you?), act out their own ontological insecurities for us all to see.
For them Marx is a fetish object which they worship to compensate for
the impotance of their political 'analysis', pontificating to the people
from the bourgeois privilege of academe.
This debate is passe - reminds me of the British Road debate in the Cp
in the late 70s. Quite constipated, infact. Foucault once told me after
a long session of theoretical fist fucking at the mineshaft that
marxists were really only worth talking to if they were either rich or
goodlooking. How right she was.
More like anal -ysis if you ask me girls. I'm outta here.
Up your ass
Candy Lacancan
>
> I guess the surprise is not so much finding standard rightwing ideological
> cant on a Foucault list but that it should be coupled with such
> astonishing ignorance of even 20th century history, not to mention
> the relevant writings (from Hegel/Marx on) that underpin necessarily
> any such discussion. Simplistic bombast is not exactly foreign to
> Foucault discussion, and certainly not to people who confuse
> Marxism with communism and socialism and the Gulag, but it has not
> been so common on this list before.
> Tom Dillingham
Has this list always been hegemonized by old fucking communists? Why is
it that marxists so frequently accuse anyone who disagrees with their
analysis of being right wing? So stonewall, feminism and black power,
not to mention semiological guerilla warfare, the Greens and the
autonomists weren't radical?
The simplistic bombast about the mighty socialist motherland began with
the trite remark that the internal policies of the USSR were preferable
to contemporary Russian gangsterism. Tell that to the masses in Moscow
honey and see how they respond.
Isn't this exactly what Foucault was talking about in his critique of
exclusionism? Just to spell things out - many self identified marxists
have been left-liberal subversives too (Gramsci for example) - but their
liberal commitment to freedom has often put them as much at odds with
their comrades on the Communist Left as with the authoritarian Right.
By branding even bare mention of the tyranny of stalinism as right wing,
these dialectians, as opposed to dialogists (Levinas mean anything to
you?), act out their own ontological insecurities for us all to see.
For them Marx is a fetish object which they worship to compensate for
the impotance of their political 'analysis', pontificating to the people
from the bourgeois privilege of academe.
This debate is passe - reminds me of the British Road debate in the Cp
in the late 70s. Quite constipated, infact. Foucault once told me after
a long session of theoretical fist fucking at the mineshaft that
marxists were really only worth talking to if they were either rich or
goodlooking. How right she was.
More like anal -ysis if you ask me girls. I'm outta here.
Up your ass
Candy Lacancan