On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> What Foucault doesn't and cannot say (except implicitly) is how power
> serves capital and how changes in capitalism cause changes in power. The
> unsaid in Foucault points to the weakness of 'post-marxism' which is its
> tendency to divorce discourse from the economic and to autonomize it. It is
> up to marxists to trace power back to capital (understood as social
> relations).
Yoshie, I was much interested in and appreciated your comments on the
relationship between foucault and marx. I was wondering if you might
elaborate a bit on this last paragraph, particularly the "unsaid." Also,
do you have any thoughts on whether a post-marxist like althusser resolves
successfully, or otherwise, this discourse/power/capital issue. Bill
Spanos has suggested, for example, that behind althusser's formulation of
the subject of capitalism is lacan's formulation of the subject of
post-freudian psychoanalysis, and that ahead of althusser is foucault's
formulation of the subject of the disciplinary society.
thanks,
bc