A guest post (from the end of last year) by Guglielmo Carchedi on Michael Roberts’s blog[CR24] makes an attempt to refute the framework put forth in Emmanuel Farjoun & Moshé Machover’s Laws of Chaos () (henceforth LoC).[FM83]Paul Cockshott responds on his own blog[Coc24] in defence of LoC’s approach, and Carchedi fires back with an addendum.
All involved are avowed “Marxists”, and the result is generally illustrative of the level of (mis)understanding of Marx’s own work that’s typical of so‐called “Marxists”. By investigating said exchange, this post begins a brief series, which will only touch upon LoC in the second instalment; that is, the present post neither attacks nor defends LoC.
Most readers should skip the bulk of this essay, which is dedicated to a thorough analysis of the piece in question. The “Putting it all together” section does not assume that the reader has read anything else, and importantly, provides hyperlinks back into the bulk of the essay, for the benefit of readers who want or need additional explanation, detail, &/or argumentation.
Fortune cookies are not Chinese. At best, they’re Japanese, and really, the modern form that we know is an American invention. The transfer in association from Japanese to Chinese (or rather, from Japanese‐American to Chinese‐American) seems to largely boil down to the gastronomic preferences of Americans at the time (viz. the first half of the 20thc.):
“A lot of Chinese restaurants were owned by Japanese,” Stephen said, noting that there wasn’t a lot of demand for sushi back then. “They opened Chinese restaurants as a means to an income.”
