Problems with the Critique world. Zompetti is right. I'll concede the point.

[Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D.]

I think Zomp is right. The analogy of Nazism as an alternative to capitalism
is rather weak. Point well taken.

I believe that Zompetti also knows that I often philosophically agree with
post-modernists views of the world. I do believe capitalism is premised on
exploitation. I do believe that hierarchies of power exist.

But, my original question still stands. Why should I embrace a post-modern
ethic or series of kritiks. THe only answers I have gotten have been:

1. A lot of personal attacks. Some pretty amusing. It sounds like they are
using personal attacks to defend their "religion." Oh no!  A Heretic is in
our midst--stone him! Stone him!

2. Microlevel, personal change. I believe that the people who have sent
those posts are sincere. They feel angst that they live in a world (U.S.
Higher Education funded and maintained through hierachies of power and
exploitation) that sucks. But, I could have gotten the same conclusion
without ever reading a single critical theorist. In fact, the examples used
a successes of localized resistances prove the point. But, I'll concede that
critical theory makes a few of the elites of our society feel a litle
guilty.

3. Questioning the assumptions of the question. Yes, I know my question is
premised upon three major philosophical rationales: a. That a theory or
exercise have some utility. b. that it be something more than a fuzzy warm
feeling--i.e. I am logocentric.  c. that an alternative is presnted that can
be examined.

But questioning the question is simply self-serving and an exercise in
avoidance. If you can't answer a difficult question, then you may have a
problem. Don't just wish the problem away through kritiking the question.
This "hoping" the questions go away mentality is an exercise in delusional
thinking.

4. Shifting the central issue back to me and my beliefs. Saying crap like "I
guess Scott is the only one that knows the TRUTH" dripping with sarcasm.
That misses the whole point of this exercise. I don't know the truth. In
fact, I believe there is no "truth."  I only believe in the relative
strength of people's arguments.

So, the question still remains. Other than making a few elites feel bad (and
thereby feel good), what does Post-marxist and Post-modernist critical
theory do to address the problems it has so eloquently raised.  I don't see
the U.S., Exxonmobil, Microsoft, and the generalized "MAN" going away.  Its
been fifity years now and I don't see shit for results.

The Heretic.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Zompetti at aol.com>
To: <scottelliott at bbnow.net>; <jackattack7 at hotmail.com>;
<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Problems with the Critique world. Stroube et all--even if you
are right, so


> In a message dated 08/02/2001 8:56:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> scottelliott at bbnow.net writes:
>
> << No Jack--any experiment/alternative is NOT good.
>
>  NAZISM was an experiment, and alternative to capitalism.
>   >>
>
>
> Scott, come on!  Not only are you mixing political systems with economic
> systems, but your analogy here is highly fallacious.    What would be more
> parallel would be a comparison of Fascism to Capitalism....and, to be
quite
> honest, if you look at the current state of America, you'll find that
we're a
> lot closer to "nazi" Germany under its fascist regime than you would
probably
> want to admit.