>
> I don't see this. While most Marxisms would reject obvious
> base-superstructure readings of the state--though even that is a
> relatively recent development--they hardly see it as "intermeshed";
> they still largely see it in instrumental ways. I know you like
> Poulantzas--and so do I, though, fuck, could he be any drier?--but he
> was writing *against* Marxism in this regard. He was an exception to,
> not a synonym for, Marxism.
Yeah, I've moved on from Poulantzas but I think he got some things right. Far too abstract for sure. But, you know, this was 40 years ago now. I don't think 'instrumentalism' is a very common position among Marxists - it's the bugbear position just about every Marxist writer on the state creates to distance themselves from it. Poulantzas is a classic of the tradition now. But ultimately, whatever, I agree it's more interesting to discuss our actual positions rather than shadow box with straw anarchists or marxists.
> Well, if you see the use of "coding" as another way of saying
> "brainwashing," then I begin to see the problem. I assume that if she
> had meant brainwashing, she would have said that. But she said coding,
> which is a very different thing. That translation is a wickedly
> reductive one.
>
> Similarly, I agree with most of the rest of your post, but I don't
> think you are interpreting Lennard correctly. Or maybe you are and I'm
> misinterpreting. But, judging by the vocabulary she uses, I don't
> think she holds the positions you are ascribing to her; specifically,
> she's not as subjectivist or individualist as the critiques you are
> offering here would suggest. Then again, maybe I'm being too generous
> in my reading.
Well, explain it to me then - what does 'coding' mean?
Mike