>I wouldn't repudiate anything I wrote in the passage. I'd express it
>a bit differently, for sure, but I'm not rejecting it. In fact, I
>think it hints at what Angela was calling for, a material analysis of
>where "postmodernism" came from. I'm with Jameson when he argues that
>one can't really be for or against "postmodernism" - it's everywhere,
>the cultural logic of what's optimistically called "late capitalism."
I don't like this use of 'postmodernism', why not say 'late capitalism' -- why confuse it and/or bind it so inextricably to postmodernism as a cross-media generic description, except to produce a new version of the old base-superstructure thing.
>I think Jameson is wrong in his essay on culture & finance capital
>when he takes the apparent immateriality of finance capital at face
>value; I'm not sure what the implications are for the cultural side
>of his analysis, but I would emphasize that behind the apparent
>immateriality of fin K are relations of power and coercion, and that
>the markets themselves are important institutions of class formation.
So Doug does this criticism of Jameson have any implications for your reading of Zizek?
Catherine