> 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 ^^^^^^ CB: To have a movement, to change the world, we need subjects, since objectivity is passive ( See Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, especially 1 ,2 and 11; Marx's materialism is distinquished from all previous materialisms, including Feuerbach's , by its active subject) Lenin demonstrated the validity of his theory of subjectivity in practice by leading the development of a mass revolutionary movement.. I cannot find equivalent practice proving their theories of subjectivity in Chomsky and Foucault. They seem good guys, just don't demonstrate the truth of their theories of subjectivity in practice, the test of truth articulated in * Materialism and Empirio-Criticism*