File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-02-02.144, message 53


Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:23:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: M-I: Deleuze, careerism (lnp3 -- post #1)


On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Keith Alan Sprouse wrote:

> Deleuze is a more interesting case.  He is not solely, but largely
> responsible for the centrality of Nietzche's influence in certain French
> circles today.  He wrote a book on Nietsche that was well received.  In
> fact, when Slavoj Zizek (yep, one of the pomo types) came to give a talk in
> our Theory Seminar, he claimed that Deleuze was not only the most important
> post-structuralist philospher (beating out Derrida and so many others) but
> that he was the most important 20th Century philosopher period!  
> 

Louis: I got to the bottom of Deleuze-Guattari last year during a
cyberseminar on fascism. I analyzed "A Thousand Plateaus" and proved
beyond a shadow of a doubt, and to a moral certainty, that they are
basically hippies. Fascism in their eyes consists basically of ungroovy or
straight behavior, known as in their jargon as "microfascism". They say,
"It's too easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the
fascist inside you, the fascist you yourself sustain and nourish and
cherish with molecules both personal and collective." This, in other
words, describes the people in the 1960s who refused to grow their hair
long and take LSD.  We called them "straight". They were "fascists" since
they were not groovy.

> I was on the list when the whole Sokal vs. _Social Text_ went a few rounds a
> while back.  It seemed, and I don't intend to do anyone any injustice here,
> that post-structuralist and postmodernist theory was more than unwelcome
> here.  Would that be a fair statement?  Or are there some theorists that
> would be well-considered here?  I am not trying to start some kind of war
> here, but am curious how far people on the list would go toward what I tend
> to think of as "cultural marxists" (ie. Lukacs, Frankfort School, Benjamin,
> Jameson, Eagleton, etc.).  These are the people, as well as some others, of
> course, that get read in literature and cultural studies programs across the
> US.  The question of academic marxism, too, seems a hot topic on this list,
> so that might have something to do with all of this, but that is not what
> I'm trying to discuss here.
> 

Louis: I think it would be very good for people to speak about Frederic
Jameson. He supposedly has interesting ideas, but can't write a lick. The
"Western Marxists" such as the Frankfurters are almost universally beloved
here even if we disagree with them. We especially are fond of those pages
in Adorno-Horkheimer when they complain about Mickey Mouse cartoons. 

The sort of people who give papers to Rethinking Marxism Conferences with
titles like "Aesthetics as Radical Politics? Difference and Diversity as
Ideology" are generally not found here, however. They might stop by for a
day or two and see all the favorable references to Lenin and decide its
not worth it.

Basically this list is geared to graduate students and workers and most of
us have very little patience for pomo babble. Somebody sent me a paper to
look at the other day for my comments. I told him that I thought it was
full of beans. It read like Sokal's article but there was no joke. He told
me that he would have to learn to express himself this way if he was going
to get ahead in academia. He said:

"I am in the process of writing my dissertation right now and applying for 
jobs.  I have been told by a number of academics and fellow-grads that if 
I really want a job I should "play down" my Marxist leanings and put 
forth a sort of pomo facade!!!!:-)  Sounding like X [the author of
the paper he sent me] would actually help!!!"

Who said the the university was a marketplace of free ideas?





     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005