there have been no 'covert corrections'. if you want to find one in the discussion on councils and lenin, this was no attempt to argue for councils, but for the pre-eminence of class struggle over socialist planning, and to elaborate once again on the specific sense in which planning begins to take precedence in the marxist movement. before, i've posted on the notion of socialist planning as a response to the crash of 1929. recently, i've talked about lenin's _what is to be done?_ and its relationship to marx.
if you'd read the posts, you'd know this. and there has been no mention of the WSJ. in any case, what makes you think i care at all what you say about some vaguely outlined and homogenised 'postmodernism' let alone what burke (rather than marx) has to say about blue-prints? but i guess this is just a slightly more elaborated version of the sniping that you've been doing since you returned to the list, and nothing here even begins to address what i've written, which i guess is the whole point of the exercise for you. but if you really think that what i've written is uninteresting or not worthy of being addressed, then why go into a constant performance of not doing so? why not just ignore? what's at stake for you here, because it sure isn't the content of the discussion? or would that be a silly question to ask of someone who beleives that self-criticism is not possible.
Angela _________
yoshie wrote:
>Burke's sympathetic criticism of the debunking strategy (noting both
its
laudable motivation -- abolishing an evil -- and its ending up with an
inability to advocate anything practical in place of the rhetorically
abolished evil, this inability often covertly corrected later through a
substitution of another term ["the Councils" or "going by what I read in
the _Wall Street Journal_"] for the one inveighed against ["the plan" or
"authority"]) applies to an entirety of postmodern philosophy, or "a
struggle against the plan," or a struggle against "authority."<