Wow.

Baudrillard-how is this not Day One Economics/History/English 101?

I think of all the theories we have studied, this discussion has been the most applicable to life (or at least Mr. Rufo has provided us with some fantastic examples). His strains of thought are disputed, that was made clear in the second paragraph, I'd like to challenge a person to find a radical and groundbreaking theorist who had their ideas accepted into the mainstream of literary theory without a significant amount of back-and-forth, are they or aren't they right discussion. That Baudrilard seems to be all over the place, both denying a theory then celebrating it, shows to me, that at the very least, the man knows his theory (in general).
The business about the Economy of the Sign was particularly thought-provoking. Because generics are so prevalant in our world these days, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, the idea of different brand stamps on the same pills and which one is privilidged is interesting to me, as well as somewhat ahead of his time. Here, I thought the Tommy Hilfiger example was interesting, and a tiny bit problematic because his name does not represent him, technically. It's his company, just like I'm sure Calvin Klein did not himself design and manfuacture the eyeglasses I am wearing now, though I understand the point of the statement. That we got that stuff, made from the same fabric as Old Navy or Target clothes, but because Tommy's fake signature is swished across the front, we fork over more money for it.

I like that Baudrillard addresses economic issues in his thoughts. His is an updated analysis of Marxism, which, I think, is a more applicable interpretation of that theory. Marx's writing, well, it's possible to say that something written in the mid to late 19th century might not fit easily into our existences. However, a more contemporary view could freshen Marxism, although at that point, do we call it Marxism? He was writing for a specific audience, and now, how has that audience (and their subsequent worldviews) changed?

The bit about analyses as self-fullfilling prophecy was a nice way to sum up my thoughts so far on theory. If this and this are true, then this will happen, no matter what. All philosophy is designed that way, it seems to me, to make it easier to accept. But, when some rouge theorist like Baudrillard comes and starts thinking about this stuff in new ways, it tends to ruffle some feathers. He seems, so far, to represent the guy that CROSSED THE LINE for a lot of thinkers. The guy that dared compare Marx and Saussure, then turned on a dime and drew question marks across the pages. This connecting theories helps explain both the stregnths of the arugments and the holes in them.

I might write more later, I have some time to think about this while folding Brand Name Tshirts Made In China.