wrobert at uci.edu :
I highly doubt that Foucault ever thought to spend all that much time thinking about Lenin's philosophy
^^^^ CB; I don't know about that. Foucault was a sincere Communist Party member in early years. Seems likely that a philosophical minded Party member like him would take a look at Engels and Lenin on philosophy.
^^^^
(Pannekoek and Gorter both had less than kind things to say though and managed to remain Marxists), but Foucault's work always had a materialist basis to it. I'm not sure why one can't engage with Marx and Nietzsche at the same time. Many of the Italian Marxists of the 70's did it without damage.
^^^^ CB; Of course, one _can_. It is just my opinion that Nietzsche is a sort of anti-Marx. So, in engaging Nietzsche, one is substantially disengaging Marx and vica versa. It's like "engaging" water and oil at the same time.
I'll save Jim Farmelant the time, and mention that Lunarcharsky, Bolshevik Minister of Education, and other Bolsheviks , had "engaged" Nietzsche in the early 1910's. But I'd say Nietzsche's atheism is the atheism of the ruling classes down through the ages, the opposite of Marxist atheism.
Here's an example. Marx celebrated the Paris Commune. Nietzsche denounced it. That's pretty telling. No Marxist materialist would do that.
^^^^
Last, Foucault's relationship to the Marxist tradition is clearly vexed, most likely because of the nature of the PCF. There are moments when he insists that Marxism is crucial to his project and other points when he tries to distance himself.
^^^^ CB; Exactly my point. Foucault seems to me to distance himself consciously from Marxism. I don't understand why Foucault fans don't just say "yea, you are right. Foucault distanced himself from Marx."
^^^^^
The most important books for my engagement with Foucault is Discipline and Punish and the History of Sexuality books. Discipline and Punish is primarily concerned with the apparatuses needed to produce abstract 'labor power' and the end of the book quotes extensively from Capital. The history of sexuality introduction criticizes a certain Freudo-Marxism, but primarily as a criticism of a particular reading of Freud by those authors that reads power as primarily repressive. robert wood
^^^^^
CB; Lots of intellectuals quote Marx while pursuing a project that goes against the fundamentals of Marx. When I read the History of Sexuality, it seemed to me that Foucault was consciously differentiating himself from Marx.
Why not just let Marx go, and argue/declare/standup for your position, or Foucault's ?