Mr. Byfield's Excellent Posts (was Re: "Economic Nationalism"?)

t byfield tbyfield at
Tue Jan 4 00:11:09 PST 2000

> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 01:38:07 -0500
> From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at>

> See, for instance, the following post in the archive, among other posts on
> postmodernism that I have posted. If you are interested, that is.

aw, yoshie... referring others back to what you've said when those very remarks prompted questions you refused to answer-- not fair!

> Besides, my criticism of postmodernism (developed in many posts) was much
> more nuanced than a typical argument that "postmodernists deny the
> existence of truth," for what it's worth, though I don't know if you or Ted
> cares about nuances in different criticisms of postmodernism. For
> instance, I explained the difference between Roy Bhaskar's approach and
> Foucault's with regard to science in some posts.

your remarks about pomos who dismiss science en masse as hog- wash weren't terribly nuanced at the time. maybe i should've stuck them in my wine cellar instead of on my hard drive to let them ripen to their full potential?

> In any case, I find it pointless to go over the subject of truth, science,
> & postmodernism all over again from scratch. A number of LBO-talkers have
> posted numerous posts on postmodernism, some like James F., Sam P., Charles
> B., Carrol C., etc. criticizing it while others posting disagreements with

you're getting warmer, gesturing vaguely in the direction of a present cohort, but naming a pomo who dismisses science en masse as rubbish--that is, bringing your erudite self to type TWO names--is hardly tantamount to going 'over the subject of truth, science, & postmodernism all over again from scratch.' to say nothing of the other subjects on which you've fallen silent when asked to justify some of your magnificent claims.

> criticisms. All the posts are in the archive if you wish to consult them
> again and offer new rebuttals. There are many books critical of
> postmodernists as well, written by Marxists such as Ellen Wood, Norman
> Geras, Alex Callinicos, Roy Bhaskar, Terry Eagleton, etc. You might read
> them and post your criticism of their works, if you care to.

ah. in order to fully understand the questions i've addressed at you, i refer you to the library of congress. had you done so, you would have recognized how truly EXCELLENT they are.

> A funny thing is that I used to argue in defense of a potential virtue of
> postmodernism on some Marxist e-lists, arguing against Jim F., etc.,
> because I once thought that left-Hegelian philosophy might provide an entry
> point to Marxism (as it once had) -- besides, some postmodernists are
> really fine literary critics -- but reading posts by you, Ted, etc. has
> made me change my mind.

there's not a trace of sarcasm in my voice when i say that that's a fine thing--though i'm positively drowning in skepticism.

> I still like Foucault, though, and consider myself to be a
> post-Foucauldian. Besides, Foucault wrote well even when he was wrong,
> unlike many other postmodernists.

zuperb. but you still haven't answered ANY of the questions. nor will you.

cheers, t

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list