And the lawyer pounces! Keep my argument in context: I'm arguing that the notions of autonomy and self-determination are crucial ideological bulwarks of capitalism. The issue is not simply that they are products of a capitalist society; it is that they are ideological bulwarks that directly support the perpetuation of capitalism. (Thought experiment: how many goods would be sold in a suburban mall if people didn't have to demonstrate their individual style and preferences?) So this is not a simplistic argument about rejecting all the ideas that emerge in a capitalist society.
[Foucault quote snipped]
>
>
> That's a fallacy. Some old German emigre said that
> capitalism creates its own gravediggers,. We can hope.
> But the fact that they are created by capitalism and
> that their ideas are formed by struggle within and
> (again we can hope) against it, doesn't mean that they
> are not suitable tools for use in the struggle against
> it.
>
> In fact, they are the only tools we have: if you want
> ideas untouched and unformed by capitalism, where will
> you find them? You paint yourself into a Foucauldian
> box here: we are totally constituted by existing
> social relations, but the only way we can get out of
> them is to start from outside them, but there is no
> access to anything outside them. So we struggle
> fruitlessly, beating our wings against the bars of the
> Iron Cage.
This isn't my position, and it's a gross misreading of Foucault. It is not necessary to use "ideas untouched and unformed by capitalism" to foment social change. I agree that some concepts that emerge in a capitalist society can be usefully applied to challenge existing power relations. (It's nice to get out of that "Foucauldian" box; all the straw men living in there were kinda itchy!) I think the crucial question here is this: which concepts that emerge in a capitalist society directly and indirectly reinforce capitalist social relations? I agree with Foucault that our modern notions of "rights" and "justice" are ideological in this sense. I know you don't agree, but note that this is an argument about the ideological functions of specific ideas, not all ideas that emerge in capitalist society.
>
> Marx had a better idea: some of the ideas and ideals
> and motivations, formed by and within capitalist
> social relations, are antagonistic to those relations,
> and create from within those relations a place to
> stand and overturn them. That's because capitalism is
> not a Foucauldian total system of power, but a system
> riven by contradiction and conflict, a system that
> generates crises and produces groups with an interest
> in understanding and abolishing it.
This is why Foucault said that you can't do history without being a Marxist: Foucault agrees with the Marxist analysis you provide above! I have to say, you're cracking me up with the "Foucauldian total system of power"; F's whole point about power relations is that it is "a system riven by contradiction and conflict"; power is not some unassailable, inalterable system of domination. In short: Foucault and Marx are on the same page here. --And I think we're in agreement with both of them!
>
> These ideas, if fully implemented, will lead to the
> abolition not only of capitalism and the ruling class,
> but of the working class as such -- their realization
> will involve the creation of a new set of social
> relations. Those relations will, no doubt, produce
> different ideas of justice and freedom and other
> things than the ones even the most radical praxis can
> create within capitalism. However, we do not know what
> these are and it is unlikely that they could motivate
> workers _formed by capitalism_ to struggle against it
> anyway, even if we could know.
Yes, I agree, the new social relations will produce different ideas of justice and freedom (and I'd go further--perhaps even make obsolete ideas like "freedom" that we cherish). I appreciate the practical political argument: it's not much of a slogan to say, "Well, you're fighting for ideas that will emerge some time in the future, but we can't say exactly what they are yet". So the question is: what currently existing ideas can motivate people to challenge the capitalist class?
Before we jump to the answer "freedom and justice!", consider a similar historical example. One strategy the labor unions used to organize was to appeal to workers' economic self-interest (e.g., Gompers: "We do want more, and when it becomes more, we shall still want more"). The immediate effect of this was the growth of the unions; however the ideological effect was to encourage and valorize "self-interest". Instead of seeking to improve working conditions for all workers, unions focused on "getting more" for their members, and--let's face it--contributed to racism and sexism in our society by excluding minorities and women from the union "brotherhood". In my view, the union tactic of appealing to self-interest was a political mistake, because it just reinforced the kind of "I'm looking out for #1" mentality that allows capitalism to flourish and keeps the working class divided.
My concern is that political appeals to freedom and justice are analogous to Gompers' "More": they could motivate people in the short run, but just end up reinforcing capitalism in the longer term. --So what can we appeal to, if not freedom and justice? I'm not much of a political organizer, but we have many examples of cooperative activity and self-sacrifice in our society--barn raising, volunteer fire depts, blood donation, charity organizations, free source software. Why not appeal to people on the basis of cooperation and mutual aid?
Miles
>
> (It's been a long time since I've touted my own work
> on this list, but haven't I sent you the papers I've
> written on this subject? I am sure that I have. If
> not, I can have them PDF'd and email them to you if
> you like. Anyone else who wants to see, too.)
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>I know Ted wants to argue that there is a
>>distinction between the "bad"
>>capitalist notion of freedom and the genuine
>>Ted-Marxist(tm) notion of
>>free self-determination. However, this distinction
>>between false
>>freedom and true freedom is in itself an ideological
>>product of our
>>society (for God's sake, even George Bush uses the
>>rhetoric of true
>>"self-determination" to contrast the noble U. S.
>>with the jihadists who
>>claim they are freedom fighters!). Thus, in
>>perpetuating the notion of
>>"genuine self-determination", we inadvertently
>>reinforce the ideological
>>bulwarks of our capitalist society.
>>
>>2. The notion of self-determination obscures the
>>many ways in which
>>social relations actively create human
>>characteristics and tendencies.
>>For the Ted-Marxist (and Chomsky), the problem with
>>our society is that
>>it is repressive; we are naturally free, and
>>capitalist society is bad
>>because it constrains that natural potential for
>>creativity and freedom.
>> I agree with Foucault that this way of thinking
>>about power is at best
>>incomplete and at worst misleading. Power does not
>>only work by
>>repression; it works via the creation of the types
>>of people--including
>>"free, autonomous individuals"--that reproduce power
>>relations. Thus
>>political change is not contingent on unleashing
>>restraints on some
>>ur-form of human freedom; rather, political change
>>is all about creating
>>social relations that make possible new human
>>capabilities and
>>tendencies. Maybe I'm reading too much into the
>>Theses on Feuerbach,
>>but I see no contradiction at all between Marx and
>>Foucault here.
>>
>>Miles
>>___________________________________
>>
>
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>