Marxism

So let's see then. You're saying that The Bolsheviks, The Khmer Rouge, Fidel, Ceausescu, The Stasi etc etc were uber Capitalists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eiseabhal

So let's see then. You're saying that The Bolsheviks, The Khmer Rouge, Fidel, Ceausescu, The Stasi etc etc were uber Capitalists

---

Perhaps not. But they are all men, does that make all men bad? Or they are all powerful men, does that make all powerful men bad?

Either way, none of them are marxist in the traditional sense, or at least in terms of system. Marxism sees the revolution and communism as inevitable. There is no right or wrong then, since it is inevitable, and to an extent, the progress in the last 60 years, particularly in Europe is a product of such an "inevitable". Semi-Socialism has worked wonders for Canada, that I can assure you. Medicare has proven to be the biggest source of national pride. Tommy Douglas, the father of medicare, was even voted the greatest Canadian.

Perhaps not!!

Some people here need to get out more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eiseabhal

Some people here need to get out more.

---

In your home in Scotland you see marxism first hand right? I live in China - the disastrous effects of a faulty pseudo-communism are everywhere. Lets just say I have an inside perspective, given that my reception of Chinese marxism at least is not limited to Western, or translated works.

No I do not see Marxism first-hand but I hear lots of outdated bs from wannabe revolutionaries who have never got their hands dirty working and never will.

I still think placing Foucault and Foucauldian thinkers under the umbrella of Marxism misrepresents what Foucault tried to accomplish. Whereas Marx borrowed from Englightenment humanism to demonstrate the exploitation that occurs under capitalism, Foucault traces Enlightenment humanism itself back to techniques of power. Marx wants to show how capitalism alienates our "species-being" - Foucault wants to investigate how the knowledge of a "species-being" has been used in political rule. Just compare Hobsbawm's histories of nineteenth-century British industrial society with those of Patrick Joyce. They are dramatically different in focus, scope and sources despite both examining issues arising from industrialization and class privilege.

Not to mention the fact that Foucault's philosophical project also built on Machiavelli, Smith and Bentham, and in his later work he perhaps engaged more so with these thinkers than Marx.

And I realize there are many interpretations of both thinkers that make them easy to use together in various disciplines, but there are some clear tensions between the two approaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shevek

I still think placing Foucault and Foucauldian thinkers under the umbrella of Marxism misrepresents what Foucault tried to accomplish. Whereas Marx borrowed from Englightenment humanism to demonstrate the exploitation that occurs under capitalism, Foucault traces Enlightenment humanism itself back to techniques of power. Marx wants to show how capitalism alienates our "species-being" - Foucault wants to investigate how the knowledge of a "species-being" has been used in political rule. Just compare Hobsbawm's histories of nineteenth-century British industrial society with those of Patrick Joyce. They are dramatically different in focus, scope and sources despite both examining issues arising from industrialization and class privilege.

Not to mention the fact that Foucault's philosophical project also built on Machiavelli, Smith and Bentham, and in his later work he perhaps engaged more so with these thinkers than Marx.

And I realize there are many interpretations of both thinkers that make them easy to use together in various disciplines, but there are some clear tensions between the two approaches.

---

Foucault's histories are unmistakenly Hegelian, like almost everything Marx wrote. The problem we have is tracing Foucault through Marx, or directly through Hegel. I am of the mind to think he read the Hegel through Marx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Foucault's histories are unmistakenly Hegelian, like almost everything Marx wrote. The problem we have is tracing Foucault through Marx, or directly through Hegel. I am of the mind to think he read the Hegel through Marx.

---

Yet Foucault rejected history as progress, as well as a universal narrative, which is what the dialectical approach is all about. Could you explain why his history is Hegelian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eiseabhal

So let's see then. You're saying that The Bolsheviks, The Khmer Rouge, Fidel, Ceausescu, The Stasi etc etc were uber Capitalists

---

Yup! The friuts of the people's labour ended up in the hands of the ruling elite. Is that not a Capitalist model according to Marx?

Part of state capitalism.