Greetings Economists, On Dec 3, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Angelus Novus wrote:
As far as Stan Goff's departure goes, I think the burden of proof is on the advocates of Marx-ism to make their case for Marx-ism's relevance.
Doyle; I don't think it takes much for Marx to be relevant. Where you write; Angelus Novus; The message to queer, environmental, feminist, and anti-fascist and anti-racist activists is: "hey, all you secondary contradictions, there's room for all your modular concerns here on the Marxist CPU." Doyle; Your computer metaphor is too restrictive. All of the above really are about the larger connection process. One can take that as simple person to person connection, or see that computed communications can do a number of alterations of the connection. In particular the one of most interest in connections is to drive the number of connections up both synchronously, and asynchronously. Racism and sexism share the physical properties of connection of the interface as well, so one might ask of the interface does the social connection reflect a universal equality. I think you are too confident of the general nature of your view. To my mind knowledge production in a world of mobile massively parallel computing seems like a good fit to Marx's views on knowledge in a communist society as Ted Winslow pointed out earlier in relation to how Marx characterized knowledge. Doyle Saylor
