Re: John Holloway debate/McLaren

[Mervyn Hartwig <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message , Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx> writes

> Holloway's notion of
> changing the world seems a bit underwhelming:
>
> "Our struggle is clearly a constant struggle to get away from capital, a
> struggle for space, for autonomy, a struggle to lengthen the leash, to
> intensify the dis-articulation [I should mention that Holloway uses this
> ungainly term a total of 11,225 times in the chapter where this citation
> appears] of domination. This takes a million different forms: throwing the
> alarm clock at the wall, arriving late for 'work', back pain and other
> forms of absenteeism, sabotage, struggles over tea breaks..."
>
> Well, okay. I am all for arriving late for work and all that, but that's
> the way I have operated for over 36 years. I don't need to read Autonomist
> jargon for that.

'Articulation' is a perfectly kosher English word, 'disarticulation' is
it's negative. I'm sure that, as a dialectician, you'll agree that
negatives are important. No other word you cite that I can see could
qualify as jargon, so I have to conclude that you mean that you don't
like what Holloway is saying. In which case you should say so and why,
instead of putting him down for jargon. I take it that '11,225' is a
metaphor for 'many', because most chapters don't contain that many
words, let alone identical words. Whatever it is, it's hardly plain
speak.

Of course, words that don't derive from everyday useage, even ungainly
ones, are really important in scientific discourse (as in Marx), but
that's another issue. You'll find 'articulated' and 'disarticulated' in
your morning newspaper.

Mervyn