At 12/02/02 16:42 -0800, you wrote: > Ken Hanly is right. Google in the hands of Pugliese can find any damn >thing. >Michael Pugliese
Yes I try to learn from this technique. It is rather like free association in a very large group. You do not always know whether your association is the relevant one, or the previous speaker's/ writer's or the associations that Google shows up. But in a wider sense I think the point is proved that there is a material base that is continually going to throw up dialectical thinking and materialist thinking. >Zoroastrian and Parsis in Science Fiction >... Kim Stanley Robinson, Red Mars. New York: Bantam (1993) (Nebula >award), 2059, Pg. 418: "No wonder Marxism is dead." ... >www.adherents.com/lit/sf_zor.html The link here is with the ancient idealist dialectics of Zoroastrianism. They may be out of fashion but G W Bush thinks the world is a battle between Good and Evil. And a science fiction writer who lards his story of the colonisation of Mars with references to Marx, some of which, I suspect, are not wholly irrelevant. Fashions come round faster and fast these days and the taboo against Marxism has largely gone. I mean the winner of Pop Idol in the UK managed to succeed without having to go through a political witch hunt because of a vaguely positive remark about Marx. At a follow up interview with a journalist on the Guardian: >I bowl him Karl Marx who he admits to studying for a couple of weeks. Marx >made him question the "easy option" of trying to make a lot of money >(something Engels did for his old mate), but it hasn't made him vote yet. >"I don't know why. Perhaps I've become a bit more cynical." That's fine. Chris Burford London
