>>> kelley <oudies at flash.net> 07/23/99 03:18PM >>>
((((((((((((
and what's more interesting is this: presumably, the impetus behind the critique of the philosophy of the subject [the idea that there is an empty container to be filled] is that marxist humanism failed on many accounts. that is, the search for the revolutionary subject located in some subject position was inadequate because it subscribed to identity thinking,t he philosophy of the subject, etc those theories that sought out the rev. subject --[the working class, the intellectual vanguard [lenin], the isolated intellectual [horkheimer], the marginalized and deviant [marcuse], women [feminism] --revealed themselves to be entrapped in the present for they actually erased human agency and lacked a theory of historical change that didn't rest on the wholly inadequate marxist assertion of the driving force or motor of history. and yet, it seems to me that lacanian marxism doesn't escape this problem either.
(((((((((((((
Charles: Of course there is a dispute, but of these there is a good argument that Leninism did change the world, move subjects to action and create a lot of working class agency. Thus, it is a source of theory on how to do the same in a different time and place.
Charles Brown