>Um... are you suggesting the Simpsons and, moreover, Dorito >commercials,
>are detached in any way from "forces of production"? That >they can not be
>used to offer any kind of insight into said "forces"?
No, I was reacting primarily to Doug's offhand remark. He seemed to be privileging pop culture products (and their study) over and above analysis of what's behind them ("forces of production"). That, and I've had a really bad past few weeks.
>I don't give a damn if Yoshie, Carrol, or you, find reading Marx, or
> >whomever, more insightful than the Simpsons, Empire, or advertising >for
>chips. Fair enough, depends what you're working on. I can find >ways in
>which all of these have something to offer. But I'm very >surprised to hear
>"Marxists" contending that some of these are not >relevant to analysis of
>"forces of production". Or even more >bizarrely -- I think, though it's a
>hell of a competition -- that some >of these are not worthy of attention
>because they are significant to >too many people.
Nope, I think such things are worthy of attention. I just think focussing on them exclusively, to the point of ignoring the abovesaid forces isn't a good idea.
>This is obviously some new and freaky understanding of Marxism with >which
>I am not familiar. Or perhaps an old and freaky one. I'm unclear >on that
>last part.
<shrug> Don't know either. I've read a tiny bit about this sort of argument (and remember less), but it seemed to me as though the Marxists were being chided for stuffiness rather than having an all-embracing attitude of "Gee-Whiz! Ain't it all grand!"
Todd
>Catherine
_________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail