fairly decent if perfunctory speech, although don't buy the argument that marxism provided the conceptual framework for the development of post modernism (nor would i classify post modernism as a 'progressive' movement), also the last sentence about not being able to turn theory into practice seems a bit misplaced coming after a correct description of marx as an analyser of capitalism - i.e. what theory is there in capital to turn into practice? none! (or about 4 pages of loose utopian dreaming compared to roughly 2,500 pages analysing capital itself)
(also annoying that everyone refers to volume I as though it was the only thing that exists, i.e. 'capital was published in 1867'
3 comments:
fairly decent if perfunctory speech, although don't buy the argument that marxism provided the conceptual framework for the development of post modernism (nor would i classify post modernism as a 'progressive' movement), also the last sentence about not being able to turn theory into practice seems a bit misplaced coming after a correct description of marx as an analyser of capitalism - i.e. what theory is there in capital to turn into practice? none! (or about 4 pages of loose utopian dreaming compared to roughly 2,500 pages analysing capital itself)
(also annoying that everyone refers to volume I as though it was the only thing that exists, i.e. 'capital was published in 1867'
Again?
anything in particular you are having trouble with?
Post a Comment