> Foucault had a problem with "final," "goal," &
> "socialism," not to
> mention the combination of all three.
and,
Micro-politics, instead, should be waged with a view to how they fit into the big picture: capital's exploitation of labor; & socialists' project to abolish it & establish the system of production for human needs & desires, not for profits.
[end]
The latter is key, in the context of this and other threads. I'm not sure what kind of a difference the former makes, setting aside the question of whether Foucault's "declassed" theory on the "technologies of self" proved a limitation to how he practiced politics.
That is, setting Foucault completely aside, how does one gauge the teleological direction of political action? It seems to me a political act--the "how"--involves a wager, with an uncertain outcome. This goes back to something Carrol posted some time ago about the certainty of the need to break apart capitalism from within, a movement of sheer negativity, but the uncertainty of any positive socialist program or final goal. Whether we're talking about medicine reform, and seeing clearly what is valuable in the overdetermined social relations that make it a problem, or drug legalizations and various reforms, and the overdeterminations it's bound up with, it seems to me hazardous to follow a secured "final goal" in directing action on the micro-political level, since the very political parameters will be changed if the "reform" is successful. That's not at all to endorse an iron cage view of power and resistance--it's keeping in mind the "how" and the fact that while abolishing the capitalist mode of production is the guiding star, the getting there needs constant critique.
Alec
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/