<html><DIV></DIV> <P>First of all thanks, Yoshie, for the journal reference. </P> <DIV></DIV>>We are all moderns, whether we like it or not. Marx wrote in <DIV></DIV> <P>Couldn't one say that we are all postmoderns, like it or not?</P> <P>>_Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts_: "The resolution of _theoretical_ contradictions is possible only >through _practical_ means....Their resolution is by no means, therefore, the task only of the understanding, but is a >_real_ task of life, a task which _philosophy_ was unable to accomplish precisely because it saw there a _purely_ >theoretical problem."</P> <P>I agree of course with this, that philosophy cannot solve these problems alone.  Praxis effects the contours of thought.  But what I mean when I say for instance that we have "to take into account" Derrida or the postmodern (NOT the same thing since Derrida, at least early Derrida is wholly modernist), is that we have to recognize a moment of truth there.  In the same way, Hegel takes into account the entire history of philosophy, or Marx takes into account a Smith or a Ricardo.  Deconstruction (not just endemic to the intellectual debates of the rich countries -- see the subaltern movement in India) is a powerful critique of ontology, especially a certain CP, Stalinist ontology that Marxists have to come to terms with in order to move beyond it.  You cannot simply ignore deconstruction's points any more than you can wish away the post-modern structure of feeling.  Something persists...or better yet the compulsion to repeat something exists bec! ause one has not yet come to terms with it.  Marxism pace Jameson is the way to negotiate these multiple theories but not in any simple reductive way.</P> <P>Josh</P><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p></html>