----- Original Message ----- From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:07 PM Subject: Re: The Mystery of Hitchens's Mind (was: Re: Bush Names Kissinger toHead 9/11 Probe)
>
>
> Anthony Tothe wrote:
> >
> >
> > .I read 50 or so pages and gave up.. came off as gibberish to me..and
> > anything that has the word "post" attached to it makes me wince. Also,
> > judging from some of the reviews of it-like the one on the Znet home
page-it
> > didn't seem like they had all that much to say. But whenever anyone
starts
> > using dense language and concepts when discussing world affairs-this
isn't
> > physics-I get very skeptical that they really have anything of value to
say.
>
> The language of parts of Capital I is dense; the language of the
> _Grundrisse_ is dense.
True.... so? I am not a fan of Marx for this reason. I rarely if ever understood what he was saying. when it was explained to me I often found myself saying that's it? All those words and terribly painful language to explain something rather obvious and simple. I don't have these problems with say Bakunin....
The language of Whitehead's _Process & Reality_
> is dense.
Never heard of it.
The language of _Empire_ is fluffy pretending to be dense.
> (The pretense perhaps fooled the authors themselves as well as some of
> their readers.) It's appeal is that it promises revolution without
> working for one, and without incorporating self-criticism into a
> revolutionary movement. The Multitude is like the Pope: infallible.
Well its interesting you mention the Pope because I often feel that books such as Empire remind of a priesthood that speak a special language that only other members can understand.
>
> The claim that its "difficulty" is only in its using a vocabulary from a
> different tradition merely confirms its fluffiness. The book sets itself
> up in competition with _Capital_. When you are pretending to operate in
> that domain, you _have_ to be dense, not merely promise in an empty
> footnote that the density exists someplace else.
Well not too sure what you're saying here but I think I agree with it.-Tony
>
> Carrol
>
>