>From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: [PEN-L:13545] Foucault, Marx, Poulantzas
>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:31:16 -0400
>
>
>
> >>> 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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com