And in rides his majesty, the liberal individual, presumably on a white horse. Nothing that I mentioned operates on the conceptual framework of choice. You might want to pick up some those Althusser essays and read them. (Which your reviewer has about as little understanding of as you do). If borrowing from Freud terrifies you so much (overdetermination is a term appropriated from Freud), you might think about looking at Gramsci or Voloshinov, perhaps even Marx. robert wood
> 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
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>