From: SUBTILE-AT-aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 20:03:16 EDT Subject: Re: Laclau and Mouffe and exploitation (repost) Andy Daitsman says about Laclau and Mouffe that they assert that "serfdom or slavery do not become oppressive until a discourse arises that asserts "the rights inherent to every human being" (p. 154), thereby giving rise to a discursive antagonism and to consciousness not just of inequality but also of injustice. From a Marxist viewpoint, this assertion is little more than absurd." My question: why would this be absurd to Marxists who had given up on any "foundational" concept of species-being? I myself thought that Marx thought serfdom and slavery were oppressive because they went against the human phenomenology of "species-being" (borrowing from the master-slave dialectic in Hegel's PHANOMENOLOGIE DES GEISTES) and produced alienation as such. But without such a phenomenology, wouldn't serfdom/ slavery be viewed as appropriate to a particular mode of production and a particular development of civilization? -Samuel Day Fassbinder
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005