Angela writes:
> the presumption that just because something is clearly put it is
> true. something appears as clear not because it is true, but
> because it is made to appear as such. this is not a new insight, by
> any means. marx signals this with the opening line: 'at first
> glance, the commodity....'. it has become important to restate
> this exactly because the field of oppositional politics, of
> left politics - including many marxists - has forgotten this
> important principle of critique.
Marx was trying to show that the commodity was not as it appeared,
true, but is that a license for the overwrought prose of some posties?
Isn't it the case, instead, that critique should be as clear as
possible because it runs counter to the accepted arguments and
verities? And isn't some pomo writing, because of its style, taken as
radical when it's actually reactionary (I'm thinking of Baudrillard
here)? Finally, does the writing's complex simply a reflection of the
complexity of the topic, or does it cover a poverty of thought?
> i for one am in no doubt that those who call for a militarization
> and taylorisation of marxist politics, of any oppositional politics
> are significantly more threatening to the future of an oppositional
> and marxist politics than most of those who are being tagged as
> pomos.
I am very much in agreement with you here.
--
Curtiss Leung