> these relations
> (power) always exist in structures of struggle. Secondly, they are
> held together through complex ideological structures (which operate
> disciplinarily and institutionally). Third, within these structures
> there always needs to be legitimating structures to patch over the
> profound contradictions that operate in structures of domination (or
> the fact that not everyone benefits equally from the system). These
> legitimating structures themselves are invariably linked up to a
> language of common sense that operates through floating
> signification.
Well, yeah. But what does any of that have to do with the question we were talking about - namely, is it a mistake to base your politics on moral principles? Miles made an argument that, if you interpreted it in the absolute, could do a reasonably good job of discrediting the idea of basing one's politics on moral principles: If it were true that any moral proposition a personal holds must necessarily have been dictated by the dominant powers of one's society, then it would indeed be pointless to base your politics on moral principles since those principles would merely reflect whatever "the system" wants you to believe. That rigid interpretation is what I was arguing against.
However, you're now saying that I'm guilty of grossly oversimplifying the idea Miles was expressing. You're saying that the moral propositions people hold are determined not simplistically by the dominant powers, but rather by "complex ideological structures," which operate "disciplinarily and institutionally," but are nevertheless "structures of struggle" which also require "legitimating structures to patch over the profound contradictions," and all of this is expressed through language containing innumerable "floating signifiers."
If you take away all the jargon, it would seem that an individual in a capitalist (or any other) society has a potentially enormous range of available and conflicting sources from which to select, constitute and reconstitute whatever moral principles appeal to him, and hence whatever politics flow from those principles. So, Rush Limbaugh thinks people are poor because they lack work ethic. Miles disagrees. Et cetera. Once you've reduced the argument to this pretty unobjectionable commonplace, it no longer serves as an argument against an individual's basing his politics on moral principles. At all.
So I still would like to know if Miles has any *reasons* why he's against fascism or apartheid. Or why he's against capitalism and for socialism. Believing things without any reasons at all would be, strictly speaking, irrational, no?
SA