From: atefeho-AT-vms2.macc.wisc.edu
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 20:49:34 -0500
Subject: Re: The Nature of Power.



Hello Benjamin

Yes Benjamin, It was very clear from your message that you were not stating
your point of view.  I just send the message via the "reply". 
Best of luck
Atefeh

At 01:03 PM 8/19/96 +0100, Benjamin Joerissen wrote:
>Sorry Atefeh,
>
>you got me wrong, I think. If my english is not *totally* mixed up, it should
>come out clearly from my former message, which referred to Mbayiha's last one.
>
>What I was trying to say is:
>1) I don't believe that F's analysis of historical structures is 
>comparable to what marxists are doing or Marx did
>2) I don't believe that, even if you do so, F could be called a marxist 
>anyway.
>
>>"the bourgeois and proletarian conflict is
>>nothing but ripples on the surface "  (or something like that !!!!)
>hits what I meant when I said one should be careful claiming that F did 
>*social* analysis.
>
>The one about Plato and Hegel was an ironical reference to Mbayiha's 
>statement: 
>>Marx called these: (1) "the materialist conception of history," (2) "the
>>dialectical method", and (3) "the critique of political economy."
>[...]
>>Well, not IMHO. My definition is a bit looser: to belong to the <marxist
>>intellectual tradition>, 1 has to fulfill AT LEAST (1), OR (2), OR (3).
>Conclusion: each dialetical thinker (2) is a marxist, too.
>I personally even wondered about M.Jay subsuming Adorno to 'Western
Marxism'... so 
>this is not MY point of view.
>
>
>Benjamin
>
>
>p.s.: ...or did I get you wrong somehow?
>___________________________
>       Netzadresse:
>joeriben-AT-zedat.fu-berlin.de
>
>