Re: Foucault, Marx, Poulantzas

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

Ricardo says:

>  > Your caveat ("only as far as political or hegemonic questions are
> >  concerned") makes L&M sound more reasonable than otherwise, but if
> >  that's the line of inquiry, why not Lenin, Mao, Gramsci, Althusser, or
> >  any number of other Marxists?
>
> Because the very intention of *Hegemony*, and I think it was brilliantly
> argued, was that Marxists have long tried to deal with the question
> of difference or plurality but only to 'domesticate it' (in various ways
> depending on the names you read) inside a theory dominated
> by 'an identitary logic'. Not surprisingly Wood would respond it is
> capitalism itself which has an identitary
> logic...to which one could respond  1) capitalism does not have an
> essence but is continually reconstructed through
> a "proliferation of diverse elements" (Japanese capitalism vs Greek
> capitalism) or 2) modern society does not = capitalism, but
> includes a number of hegemonic centres and not so hegemonic
> points.

Marx doesn't talk about "the identity of the working class," "the
identity of a mode of production," or anything like that, & neither
do Marxists worth reading.  The idea is to examine phenomena as
(historically evolved & evolving) ensembles of social relations (Cf.
Theses on Feueurbach).  To the contrary, it is post-Marxists who are
interested in non-relationally conceived "identities."  For instance,
in your post, you argue that capitalism does not have an essence but
at the same time speak of "Japanese capitalism vs Greek capitalism"
as "elements."  If capitalism has no essence, neither does "Japanese
capitalism."  Besides, why stop at the level of the existing state?
Why not "Tokyo capitalism vs. Osaka capitalism," "Yokohama capitalism
vs. Chigasaki capitalism," and so on, in an endless series of
atomization?  How do you identify relevant "elements" to be
explained?  What are the principles of explanation?

Yoshie