David McInerney is right to say that "Marsden reinterprets both Marx and
Foucault via the 'critical realism' of Bhaskar et al." The point is,
however, to argue that, despite the tragedies of the fomer USSR and the
communist movement, Marx's work still characterizes modern life
insightfully. Nothing much need change. Here is what Marsden says: "The
more I read of Marx and Foucault, the more they seemed to explore a
common problem, albeit in very different ways. There was an unspoken
dialogue between them. Essentially, I used critical realism to give
voice to this dialogue, to mediate between them. This argument emerged:
Marx explains the 'why' of power and the law of motion of society and
Foucault explains the 'how' of power and the microphysics of society. To
marry the 'why' and the 'how' of power, it proved necessary to explicate
the 'what': to reconstruct and synthesize Marx and
Foucault's respective objects, which I took to be 'relations of
production' and 'disciplinary power'. That is what I attempt in this
book. Together, I submit, they form capital, society's genetic code,
currently active in shaping what we recognize as the postmodern."
Philip Goldstein
> This apparently overcomes what is depicted as the "deeply problematic"
> character of previous attempts to combine Marx and Foucault. I guess it
> would depend on which Marx and which Foucault one was talking about!
> Personally I find Bhaskar's work to be deeply problematic, and one doesn't
> need to be a postmodernist to think so. Wal Suchting, author of _Marx and
> Philosophy_ and no fan of "postmodernism" as an epistemological position,
> was a prominent critic of Bhaskar (see his review of Bhaskar's book in
> _Radical Philosophy_ in the early 90s) but an appreciator of Marx,
> Althusser, and Foucault who did not see too many problems in combining them.
> My guess is that the incompatibility that Marsden postulates between Marx
> and Foucault probably arises somewhere around the truth-power and
> ideology-science issues, and that the main interest arises from the
> similarities between Marx's analysis of the labour-process and Foucault's
> work on discipline, with the schism arising somewhere around Foucault's
> treatment of the 'repressive hypothesis'.
> Only guesses but I've read a fair bit of this literature.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David McInerney" <borderlands@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Foucualt and capital
>
> > I haven't read this book, but have seen it listed for sale on the web.
> You
> > might want to look at some of the author's other publications, listed on
> his
> > website:
> > http://www.athabascau.ca/html/staff/academic/richardm.htm
> >
> > The following two in particular look like they might be on similar topic
> > matter:
> > "The Unknown masterpiece: Marx's model of capital". Cambridge Journal of
> > Economics. Volume 22, Number 3, May 1998, pp. 297-324.
> > "A Political Technology of the Body: How Labour is Organized into a
> > Productive Force". Critical Perspectives on Accounting. Vol. 9, No. 1,
> > February 1, 1998 pp. 99-136.
> >
> > Blurb from Routledge catalogue:
> >
> > Marx after Foucault
> > Richard Marsden,
> > Athabasca University, Canada
> >
> > The synthesis of Marx and Foucault has
> > traditionally been seen within the social
> > sciences as deeply problematic. The author
> > overturns this received wisdom by subjecting
> > both thinkers to an original re-reading
> > through the lens of the philosophy of critical
> > realism.
> >
> > The Nature of Capital overturns traditional
> > interpretations of Marx, presents an accessible
> > and comprehensive account of the development
> > of his model of capital and demonstrates its
> > ability to explain modern societies.
> >
> > Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought
> > September 1999: 234x156: 288pp
> > Hb: 0-415-19861-5: 60.00
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ali Rizvi" <ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:27 PM
> > Subject: Foucualt and capital
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > have any body on here, read the following book,
> > > The Nature of Capital : Marx After Foucault
> > > by Richard Marsden
> > >
> > > if so any thoughts on it?
> > >
> > > i cant find the book anywhere around me. try to get an idea.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > ali
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
> > > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
> > >
> >
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/x-vcard
---
Foucault via the 'critical realism' of Bhaskar et al." The point is,
however, to argue that, despite the tragedies of the fomer USSR and the
communist movement, Marx's work still characterizes modern life
insightfully. Nothing much need change. Here is what Marsden says: "The
more I read of Marx and Foucault, the more they seemed to explore a
common problem, albeit in very different ways. There was an unspoken
dialogue between them. Essentially, I used critical realism to give
voice to this dialogue, to mediate between them. This argument emerged:
Marx explains the 'why' of power and the law of motion of society and
Foucault explains the 'how' of power and the microphysics of society. To
marry the 'why' and the 'how' of power, it proved necessary to explicate
the 'what': to reconstruct and synthesize Marx and
Foucault's respective objects, which I took to be 'relations of
production' and 'disciplinary power'. That is what I attempt in this
book. Together, I submit, they form capital, society's genetic code,
currently active in shaping what we recognize as the postmodern."
Philip Goldstein
> This apparently overcomes what is depicted as the "deeply problematic"
> character of previous attempts to combine Marx and Foucault. I guess it
> would depend on which Marx and which Foucault one was talking about!
> Personally I find Bhaskar's work to be deeply problematic, and one doesn't
> need to be a postmodernist to think so. Wal Suchting, author of _Marx and
> Philosophy_ and no fan of "postmodernism" as an epistemological position,
> was a prominent critic of Bhaskar (see his review of Bhaskar's book in
> _Radical Philosophy_ in the early 90s) but an appreciator of Marx,
> Althusser, and Foucault who did not see too many problems in combining them.
> My guess is that the incompatibility that Marsden postulates between Marx
> and Foucault probably arises somewhere around the truth-power and
> ideology-science issues, and that the main interest arises from the
> similarities between Marx's analysis of the labour-process and Foucault's
> work on discipline, with the schism arising somewhere around Foucault's
> treatment of the 'repressive hypothesis'.
> Only guesses but I've read a fair bit of this literature.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David McInerney" <borderlands@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Foucualt and capital
>
> > I haven't read this book, but have seen it listed for sale on the web.
> You
> > might want to look at some of the author's other publications, listed on
> his
> > website:
> > http://www.athabascau.ca/html/staff/academic/richardm.htm
> >
> > The following two in particular look like they might be on similar topic
> > matter:
> > "The Unknown masterpiece: Marx's model of capital". Cambridge Journal of
> > Economics. Volume 22, Number 3, May 1998, pp. 297-324.
> > "A Political Technology of the Body: How Labour is Organized into a
> > Productive Force". Critical Perspectives on Accounting. Vol. 9, No. 1,
> > February 1, 1998 pp. 99-136.
> >
> > Blurb from Routledge catalogue:
> >
> > Marx after Foucault
> > Richard Marsden,
> > Athabasca University, Canada
> >
> > The synthesis of Marx and Foucault has
> > traditionally been seen within the social
> > sciences as deeply problematic. The author
> > overturns this received wisdom by subjecting
> > both thinkers to an original re-reading
> > through the lens of the philosophy of critical
> > realism.
> >
> > The Nature of Capital overturns traditional
> > interpretations of Marx, presents an accessible
> > and comprehensive account of the development
> > of his model of capital and demonstrates its
> > ability to explain modern societies.
> >
> > Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought
> > September 1999: 234x156: 288pp
> > Hb: 0-415-19861-5: 60.00
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ali Rizvi" <ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:27 PM
> > Subject: Foucualt and capital
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > have any body on here, read the following book,
> > > The Nature of Capital : Marx After Foucault
> > > by Richard Marsden
> > >
> > > if so any thoughts on it?
> > >
> > > i cant find the book anywhere around me. try to get an idea.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > ali
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
> > > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
> > >
> >
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/x-vcard
---