Jim F. asked a question as to where Marx said that '*ideology* is true,' and Angela answers 'it's not possible to think of *capital* as false. it's both true and false.' That's a non sequitur. Or is Angela's argument that capital = ideology and that ideology = capital? If so, why use the term 'ideology' at all and say 'ideology is both true and false to which we can say neither yes nor no'? Why not dispense with the term 'ideology' in a Foucauldian fashion, since, in Angela's conception, the term is _redundant and irrelevant_? Why continue to say, 'hence, ideology is both true and untrue'?
Second, does Moishe Postone really argue that 'capital is ideology and vice versa' and _further_ claim that 'ideology is both true and false to which we can say neither yes nor no'? Allow me to be a skeptic and have 'a bit of doubt' here until I re-read his work. : )
Lastly, how do you make an argument about the _truth_ of capital (e.g. 'capital is both true and false') without making a truth claim?
Yoshie