>>> jkschw at hotmail.com 06/18/01 06:32PM >>>
or one can dispense with
>the Marxist premise that capitalism is the defining essence of all power
>relations, and see what Marx and Foucault can tell us about a more
>contingent, more articulated field of power.
>
Leo, you have been so reasonable for so long, and now this unnecessarily provcative red herring. There is not a single Marxist here, not even Charles, who thinks that "the defining essence," whatever that is, of "all power relations" is capitalism. Even a class reductionist would not be so narrow (what about feudal or slave relationships before the rise of capitalism?). And even a fairly ortho Marxist need not be a class reductionist.
(((((((((
CB: What do you mean "not even Charles" ? :>). ( Actually , I take that as a compliment) You are right , Justin, Since entering these lists I have consistently pronounced an integrated communist feminist , pro-Black Radical Congress position, a unity of differences. The Black Radical Congress principles of unity are not all class reductionist.
Cheerio, comrade
((((((((
A historical materialist like myself (as I have explained, I doubts about the utility of the "Marxist" label, and don't care to either fight _for_ it, or because of it) is perfectly happy to say that there are all kinds of power relationships with all kinds of different bases. It's just that if you want to understand class societies, including our own capitalist one, class relationships are particularly salient for a lot of purposes, e.g., if you want to figure out who runs the government and why, or why the press lies the way it does, or why voting for Democrats somehow fails to being long term large scale improvements beyond holding the dike. Do I insist, or suggest, that sex oppression is really capitalist exploitation under its skin? Of course not. That dog won't fight. So why bring it up?
--jks _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com