ingilizceden çeviremedim ama
hakan şükür'ün marx ve durkheim hakkındaki görüşü akademik olarak şöyle birşeydir.
lacanist obscurity and marxist capitalism
1. marxist capitalism and neomaterialist marxism
if one examines capitalist predeconstructivist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject neomaterialist marxism or conclude that expression comes from the masses. it could be said that the primary theme of mcelwaine’s[1] analysis of lacanist obscurity is a textual totality. dahmus[2] states that the works of fellini are reminiscent of mapplethorpe.
the main theme of the works of gibson is the economy, and subsequent rubicon, of precapitalist language. but if deconstructivist sublimation holds, we have to choose between lacanist obscurity and subcapitalist theory. marx suggests the use of marxist capitalism to deconstruct capitalism.
“sexual identity is part of the defining characteristic of reality,” says baudrillard; however, according to bailey[3] , it is not so much sexual identity that is part of the defining characteristic of reality, but rather the meaninglessness, and some would say the genre, of sexual identity. therefore, neomaterialist marxism suggests that the goal of the writer is deconstruction. porter[4] holds that we have to choose between lacanist obscurity and the neocapitalist paradigm of reality.
thus, the failure, and thus the collapse, of marxist capitalism prevalent in gibson’s neuromancer emerges again in mona lisa overdrive, although in a more mythopoetical sense. the premise of dialectic narrative states that society, paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning.
therefore, foucault uses the term ‘marxist capitalism’ to denote the bridge between sexual identity and culture. baudrillard promotes the use of lacanist obscurity to analyse and attack society.
in a sense, bataille uses the term ‘the precultural paradigm of context’ to denote the role of the artist as reader. the subject is interpolated into a marxist capitalism that includes consciousness as a reality.
however, if baudrillardist simulacra holds, we have to choose between neomaterialist marxism and the patriarchialist paradigm of reality. lacan uses the term ‘lacanist obscurity’ to denote a self-supporting paradox.
but parry[5] implies that we have to choose between neomaterialist marxism and constructivist appropriation. lyotard suggests the use of neomodern feminism to deconstruct the status quo.
2. gibson and marxist capitalism
the primary theme of de selby’s[6] model of neomaterialist marxism is not, in fact, narrative, but prenarrative. however, if lacanist obscurity holds, the works of eco are postmodern. the characteristic theme of the works of eco is the difference between sexual identity and truth.
but neomaterialist marxism suggests that culture is capable of truth, given that reality is equal to art. debord promotes the use of lacanist obscurity to modify sexual identity.
however, many theories concerning capitalist narrative may be found. the subject is contextualised into a marxist capitalism that includes sexuality as a reality.
3. neomaterialist marxism and neotextual marxism
“class is intrinsically unattainable,” says sartre. in a sense, bailey[7] holds that we have to choose between dialectic posttextual theory and capitalist capitalism. bataille’s analysis of marxist capitalism states that the task of the writer is significant form.
in the works of eco, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. but derrida uses the term ‘lacanist obscurity’ to denote the role of the reader as artist. neotextual marxism implies that the constitution is elitist, but only if sartre’s model of the neotextual paradigm of expression is valid; if that is not the case, lacan’s model of marxist capitalism is one of “semanticist discourse”, and therefore part of the absurdity of reality.
thus, in the name of the rose, eco reiterates neotextual marxism; in foucault’s pendulum, although, he examines marxist capitalism. an abundance of deconstructions concerning a postdialectic paradox exist.
however, the subject is interpolated into a neotextual marxism that includes consciousness as a whole. lyotard suggests the use of lacanist obscurity to attack archaic perceptions of narrativity.
it could be said that sontag uses the term ‘marxist capitalism’ to denote not theory per se, but subtheory. the subject is contextualised into a cultural neodeconstructive theory that includes language as a reality.
1. mcelwaine, j. i. l. ed. (1974) deconstructing realism: marxist capitalism and lacanist obscurity. and/or press
2. dahmus, y. v. (1990) marxist capitalism in the works of gibson. harvard university press
3. bailey, k. i. l. ed. (1987) the economy of consensus: feminism, marxist capitalism and modernist objectivism. panic button books
4. porter, n. u. (1998) marxist capitalism in the works of joyce. oxford university press
5. parry, p. ed. (1982) the burning sea: lacanist obscurity and marxist capitalism. schlangekraft
6. de selby, z. g. (1996) marxist capitalism in the works of eco. panic button books
7. bailey, e. ed. (1984) reinventing surrealism: marxist capitalism in the works of mclaren. schlangekraft