> > I think I agree. But it does raise the question of what sort of
> > "discourse" is likely to advance "the left" as a viable, and visible,
> > political entity as opposed to keeping it stuck in its current state of
> > moribund, and (in these circles at least) ivory tower irrelevance. <...>
>
> well, a simple way to avoid getting swallowed by the giant
> sucking sound--not the suck itself but its sound--produced
> by the backward-glancing, genealogy-minded, reductively-
> obsessed, hair-splitting, nomimalistico-scholiastic rubbish
> of ivoiricism academique is to spend a bit more time think-
> ing about implications and a bit less time dwelling (in the
> housing par excellence of pissants, the pup tent of misery:
> a wet blanket draped over a stick in the mud) on origins.
> and i don't mean 'theoretical' implications, which are (imo)
> in the largest part a dishonest trick for (re-)imposing the
> limitations of the past on the possibilities of the future,
> according to the prevalent theory that all possibilities are
> 'determined' by the conditions which give rise to them and,
> as such, merely more or less repetitions of the past.
What would you say we need to know about the present, and specifically about the actual conditions and trajectory (laws of motion) of capital and capitalism, that would provide a basis for these implications you want us to spend more time on? To what extent is it important to try to understand how we got to where you think we are?
> > <...> I'm tired of being irrelevant.
>
> no need to fear: being irrelevant is *so* twentieth-century.
What century do you think we are in, t?
RO