> At 1:06 AM +1100 2/24/03, Catherine Driscoll wrote:
> > > Explain to us (A) what you think Marxist theory has to say about
> >> labor, commodity, exploitation, state, non-state institutions, etc.,
> >> and (B) what specific changes you think you need to make in Marxist
> >> theory to explain IP better.
> >
> >god, yoshie, for someone who only ever quotes other people, you sure
> >expect a lot in order to make a point (the one for some reason
> >you've cut and pasted to the bottom of the post. However, yeah, I'll
> >give it a go if you really don't know what Marxist theory has to say
> >abnout these things... but not, if I'm to be answerable, at 1am in
> >the morning. I'll get to it asap.
>
> I have no idea what you think Marxist theory is.
For me, you mean, rather than you? I thought the topic of discussion was *your* very totalising claims about the universal applicability of an apparently very narrowly defined version of Marxist theory (I'm not quite sure of this as you haven't explained quite what you think it is). For me, Marxist theory is an expansive and very changeable field more or less indebted to either Marx or writers who have understood themselves to be strongly indebted to Marx. That definitely involves people I'm pretty positive you don't think of as Marxist, and one of its strengths is that, at it's best, it's not static but in fact quite radically specific to what is being studied. That's part of what "historical materialism" means to me. [And god I can't quite believe I wrote that sentence.]
> If spelling out (A)
> and (B) in your own words takes too much time, you might cite
> representative sources that in your opinion adequately sum up (A) and
> (B).
Is that what it is then? You just don't have time to actually say stuff? OK, well the importance of making Marxist theory self-reflexive and altering it to suit specific situations or questions... I could 'cite' lots of people I can't stand and many I admire, how about Althusser, Benjamin, Gramsci, and all those other diverse "Marxists" who've made something different of "Marx". How about the radical redeployment of Marx (Deleuze, Foucault and so on), the important perversions of it (Zizek, Laclau, Butler, etc), the interesting applications of it (I'll go Hall, Kracauer, Morris, Williams, just to annoy you). Hell, how about Doug? And I could go on but the list is probably long enough to make its point. I am not saying Marxist theory/thought can't do stuff, I'm saying it can do lots of stuff, as long as it isn't concerned solely with repeating things it's already said and knows what to do with.
> ... Marxist theory (Marx + the Marxist tradition) is spare, elegant, and
> flexible,
"Marx and the Marxist tradition" could be massive, baroque, contradictory, and tons of other things in excess of this description. How on earth can you say "Marx and the Marxist tradition" is never subject to alteration or challenge, or never sees the need for alteration or challenge?
> and I don't see any necessity to make fundamental changes
> in what it has to say about the essence of capitalism in order to
> explain the causes and effects of its recent development. I'm simply
> asking what specific theoretical changes you think you need to make.
> Otherwise, the conversation ends here, as I have no clue what changes
> you have in your mind.
You're the one with the craving for a static or delimited "Marxism", not me. I never said Marxist theory needed some specific required set of changes... what I said was that if it was to be any use or of any interest it had to be continually open to self-critique and adaptation. And I don't think the instance of IP proves that not to be the case.
Catherine
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP at ArtsIT: http://admin.arts.usyd.edu.au/horde/imp/