[lbo-talk] Chomsky on Foucault

[Shane Taylor]

Brian Siano wrote:
> I think it depends on the theory, actually. As
> Chomsky once said, the labor movement didn't
> need the work of Derrida or Lacan to know what's
> right and wrong, or that powerful interests were
> working against them, or that corporations were
> screwing them. He's a big believer in a common
> sense of morality. I figure, if the theory speaks to
> _that_, then Zizek's point makes decent sense.

Only if we accept that it is not "common sense" to say that "We work for
corporations, they provide our livelihood.  Hurting them hurts us."  Or
that it is not "common sense" to say "We have to do something about
terrorism.  And it won't always be pretty."

It's also worth remembering, as Tom Frank did with _One Market Under
God_, that the populist divide of The People v. The Elite, with Common
Sense on one side, and arrogant Theory on the other, was central to the
mythos of the "business revolution" of the '90s.  Unions and government
were The Elite, CEOs and venture capitalists were avatars of The People. 
Shareholder democracy was populism, par excellence.  The business cycle
and concern over price-to-earning ratios belonged to antiquated Theory,
whereas the likes of management gurus were peddling Common Sense.

-- Shane

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!