>>> Jim heartfield <Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> 05/25 7:36 AM >>>
In message <2.2.32.19980525033711.00b84b94 at ariel.macarthur.uws.edu.au>,
Trond Andresen <t.andresen at uws.edu.au> writes
>>>Doug, what examples can you point to of non-vulgar antipostmodernism?
.....
Finally, can I recommend the passages in Lenin's 'What is to Be Done?'
on 'Freedom of Criticism' and 'The Swamp', as a near perfect
anticipation of the arguments of pomo.
--
>>>> Further supporting Jim's point, in What is to Be Done ? Lenin argues against the Economists who "vulgarly" wanted to focus trade unionism pure and simple and not mix politics with economics. Thus, Lenin argued against a crass economic "determinism" of the struggle.
In another famous dispute , with the "renegade" marxist, Kautsky, Lenin argued against the development of imperialism into ultra-imperialism as automatically becoming socialism without a class CONSCIOUS working class revolutionary act. Again, Kautsky was the vulgarist in this dispute, as Lenin argued against another type of simple economic determinism.
Yet, often it seems that Lenin is categorized a vulgar marxist and materialist.
Of course, in _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_, he includes "French Symbolists" among his neo-Kantian antagonists of Marxist materialism. Could this be another anticipation of arguments against post-mods ? Surely, the structuralists are semioticians or symbolists, French symbolists specifically.
How are we defining "vulgar" in this discussion ?
Charles