At 06:18 AM 7/30/98 -0400, dls wrote:
>It seems that we agree on something [in re marketS vs *the* market] .
However, this leaves >me little confused >as to how you're willing to
engage in >*P*olitics and do >not limit >yourself to *p*olitics.
{snip}
I wrote: > Funny, though, how this -- and the critique of
>>rationality to boot -- doesnt preclude some of us from defending the
>>idea/project of socialism.)
And dls responded: >>Indeed.
Well, in short, the intellectual and ethical commitment to socialism is
what allows (or requires) me to *not* limit myself to *p*olitics (as
opposed to *P*olitics). Or in other words I don t think struggles over any
instance of lower case *p*olitics can be "won" or even addressed without
winning and tackling them all. Which amounts to having or performing an
upper case *P*olitics. I would agree that questions of big *P* politics
and power are indeed fraught, but I feel that this is one of those
self-deconstructive "binarisms"/hierarchies that we cannot not inhabit (as
Derrida might say).
[snip]
>>And yet, I am bemused at how well-nigh *any* critique of >what counts
as>>capitalism and the ideology of the market >generates, in some quarters,
a>>knee-jerk response about >those vulgar, anti-intellectual anti-postmodern
>>anti-pluralist Marxists.
>
>Moi? Knee-jerk? Nah! Or maybe those behaviorists are >right after all!
The return of Comrade Pavlov!
>
>Hugs and kisses!
>
>deliciously liminal subjectivities
Now *this* is funny! LOL and *smooches* to you! (in chat room parlance).
Can we can call you "deelish" for short?
Best,
Daniel
Daniel Vukovich
English; The Unit for Criticism
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>It seems that we agree on something [in re marketS vs *the* market] .
However, this leaves >me little confused >as to how you're willing to
engage in >*P*olitics and do >not limit >yourself to *p*olitics.
{snip}
I wrote: > Funny, though, how this -- and the critique of
>>rationality to boot -- doesnt preclude some of us from defending the
>>idea/project of socialism.)
And dls responded: >>Indeed.
Well, in short, the intellectual and ethical commitment to socialism is
what allows (or requires) me to *not* limit myself to *p*olitics (as
opposed to *P*olitics). Or in other words I don t think struggles over any
instance of lower case *p*olitics can be "won" or even addressed without
winning and tackling them all. Which amounts to having or performing an
upper case *P*olitics. I would agree that questions of big *P* politics
and power are indeed fraught, but I feel that this is one of those
self-deconstructive "binarisms"/hierarchies that we cannot not inhabit (as
Derrida might say).
[snip]
>>And yet, I am bemused at how well-nigh *any* critique of >what counts
as>>capitalism and the ideology of the market >generates, in some quarters,
a>>knee-jerk response about >those vulgar, anti-intellectual anti-postmodern
>>anti-pluralist Marxists.
>
>Moi? Knee-jerk? Nah! Or maybe those behaviorists are >right after all!
The return of Comrade Pavlov!
>
>Hugs and kisses!
>
>deliciously liminal subjectivities
Now *this* is funny! LOL and *smooches* to you! (in chat room parlance).
Can we can call you "deelish" for short?
Best,
Daniel
Daniel Vukovich
English; The Unit for Criticism
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign