Re: Re: Re: Re: Hardt:"Spinoza was a communist thinker long before Marx"

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxx>]

Carrol:

> How so? She says that certain categories are the best available, to
her
> knowledge, for explaining the world, and that they explain
Foucault's
> historical observations more adequately than do Foucault's own
> categories. She suggests that if you think different, that you
should
> show how those categories are wrong or inadequate.
>
> I don't see what is zero sum about that? What specific Marxian
category,
> for example, is incomplete without Foucault. And besides, I don't
see
> how a category can be either complete or incomplete.
>
> You do puzzle me a bit. If you really believe that Marx's
fundamental
> categories are simply wrong, then that is a difference that can
hardly
> be settled on a maillist. If you believe they can be refined or
> supplemented, then the route to that is not to make meta-theoretical
> statements as you seem to be doing but simply to proceed to make
some of
> the refinements or supplements. But your questions are so open-ended
> that the only possible response would be to copy in the 50 volumes
of
> Marx's collected works (or to rewrite those works completely to
prove
> that one was "thinking for her/himself").
>
> Perhaps I'm not understanding you.
>
> Carrol
=========
Hey Carrol, haven't you been following the thread? In a paroxysm of
post-modern reflexivity and irony not seen since May '68, commissar
Furuhashi asserted with Cartesian certitude that I'm a dogmatist and
closed down the discussion...I mean argument. Obviously some of the
children of '68 would prefer not to learn some of the lessons of that
period, so like a good Stakhanovite I'm off to read Erasmus and Sextus
Empiricus. Lord only knows what would happen if Richard Marsden had
Yoshie as his Dean.

Ian