> How is Foucault's theory any different
> in principle from vulgar marxism if you want to call
> Chomsky's work vulgar marxist?
Chomsky has no theory of the subject -- i.e. why millions of Americans desperately want to believe that Saddam Hussein = Osama bin Laden, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Foucault, by contrast, spends lots of time tracing out how power works *within* subjects, i.e. why it is that so many people end up extolling their oppressors and identifying with their conditions of captivity. That's very far from Plato's cave, which assumes the sort of equivalency of all cognitions which needs to be explained in the first place.
-- DRR