> and it's one you don't like because it isn't teleological and
> authoritarian.
>
A minimal verbal accuracy would be attractive in discussions of the alleged teleological nature of marxism. If all one means by it is that a motive can be ascribed to most (not all necessarily) human actions, and that a working-class revolution must develop (as it proceeds) a high level of consciousness in large sectors of the class (as in "revolutionising practice"), then I suppose marxism is teleological. But that has never been my understanding of teleological thought claims that an object's purpose is the *cause* of its existence. The butterfly's wings developed in order that the butterfly could fly. The current consensus is that even slight bumps, from purely contingent mutation, would proved a means of dispersing heat, always of crucial importance. Any further accidental -- contingent -- growth of those bumps would for some species be preserved by their greater efficiency in heat dispersal. And so on. Now any biologist, explaining such a development, would almost certainly fall into language which would allow the ignorant or the ill-willed to say that she had imported teleology into biology. But so far as I can recall (if I am wrong I would like to see the relevant passages quoted) Yoshie has in fact been more than usually careful to avoid such language. Hence I can only conclude that your accusation of teleological thinking is a deduction from a dogmatic assumption that all marxists are necessarily guilty of such thinking. But if that is the case, why not argue with Lenin or Marx or Mao rather than another poster on this list. Or, if marxists are by definition teleologists, why bother to debate them at all? It can't be because you wish to prevent others from believing them, for in that case rather than applying such empty labels you would offer substantive arguments against their substantive points. This particular label is in any case based on mind-reading -- the sentence quoted being an ascription of motive rather than a comment on content.
Your "authoritarian" exhibits the same structure, and I will assume a Carnapian description of it (merely emotive) is accurate, unless you are able both to define it and show (from the texts of Yoshie's posts) that she does indeed only approve of authoritarian positions.
Carrol
P.S. So far as one can determine from the actual content of posts, the only subscriber to this maillist who has ever read Lacan is Yoshie. If someone here has read Lacan, perhaps it would be useful to the rest of us if they showed at least as much knowledge of his texts as Yoshie does.