On 12/3/06, Angelus Novus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Doyle Saylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it takes much for Marx to be relevant.
I never said it did. I wish people would stop
equating Marx with Marxism. The poor soul doesn't
deserve it.
> Your computer metaphor is too restrictive. All of
> the above really are
> about the larger connection process.
If you intend to say that all things are kind of in
someway interconnected, then sure, I don't disagree
with this. Totality is a useful notion. I think the
Marxian critique of political economy can, and must,
be integrated into a wider theory about modernity that
would integrate insights about western rationality,
gender, the construction of racial and national
identity, etc.
If that's the case, though, aren't you just quibbling with the name?
By now, in the minds of many self-identified Marxists (if not in many
sects), it's roughly what you describe that stands for Marxism.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
