> > 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 i'd meant 'the teleological nature of marxism,' i'd have said 'the teleological nature of marxism,' but that's not what i said because that's not what i meant. i understand that yoshie thinks she's the very epiphany of marxism, which is fine; but what's up with you asking questions like this? is this some tentacular per- formance wherein she plops people in her killfile and you answer for her ('or what')?
and, btw, fwiw, ymmv, i have no beef with teleology--except when it starts mixing it up with authoritarianism (which being author- itarianism always leads in that dance). a teleology that accepts contingency: that's ideal. which is what's so insufferably droll about 'marxism' according to 'marxists': if they'd had their way when The Man was writing, he'd never have written any of what he wrote. lucky for him, there were none; more's the pity now. note that saying so is not a condemnation of marxism; rather, it's to condemn the proceduralization of what could be a much more fruit- ful form of analysis were it primarily in the hands of those who were no more likely to formalize it than to formalize, say, moby dick. if youth is wasted on the young, marxism is wasted on marx- ists, and just about every other -ism is wasted on 'its' -ists.
cheers, t