Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 14:09:54 +1100 From: davidmci-AT-coombs.anu.edu.au (David McInerney) Subject: Reply to "redak" on Derrida's _Spectres of Marx_ On Tue, 28 Nov 1995, redak <h8706333-AT-falbala.wu-wien.ac.at> wrote: >Here >>Marxism presents itself as excessivley anxious to distance itself from >>its own past. In his recent "Marx's Purloined Letter", NLR 109, 75-109, >Fredric >>Jameson when *defending* the notion of class argues that there is >> >So you quoted the article of Jameson in the NLR which is about Derrida. What >do you think of the rest of the Jameson-text and - in case you have read >also Derrida - about his new book (Spectres of Marx) > > > > --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- "Redak", you may have seen the post I sent in before commenting on Derrida and the response by Ahmad. A further reference you may wish to look up is a review article on the French edition of _Spectres de Marx_ (Paris, 1993) in the August 1995 issue of _Economy and Society_. I personally have little time for Derrida's spiritualist appropriation of Marx. Here is my former contribution again for your reference (from 2 November, 1995): >>You may have already talked about this, but I was wondering if anyone has >>looked at Derrida's _Spectres of Marx_ in enough depth to post a brief >>critique/discussion. >> >>Jane Gregg >>Dept of American Studies >>University if Canterbury, New Zealand >> >Jane, > >I read the extract in _New Left Review_ No. 205 and the response by Aijaz >Ahmad in _NLR_ # 208. I lent my copy of _NLR_ # 205 to 'somebody' who I >am unable to remember. I purchased the book when it came out but it >doesn't seem to offer much more excitement than the _NLR_ piece. It's all >so rusty now but what stuck with me about Derrida's piece was that he >recommends discarding practically all of marxism except for a throw-away >line about 'spectres' which he then interprets in the terms of Laclau's >'New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time' as a sort of return of the >repressed which arises out of every attempt at hegemony. Of course, this >sort of thing is deconstruction's strong point, and the mad prince of >deconstruction, dear old Derrida himself, has privileged access to all >that remains valid in marxism and therefore becomes the leader of the >decontructivist Fourth International, and a veritable fifth column in the >academy, finding lots of repressed things in Shakespeare and thereby >holding up the banner of his idealist revolution ... The cynic in me >suggests that Derrida wants to repress the few remaining marxists in the >acedemy, usurp their rich theoretical legacy, reduce it to a bit of >bullshit about Hamlet's dead father, and then claim he's 'doing it all for >us'. Suitably paternalistic for the son, who, in the grip of the >Oedipus-complex, looks to replace the father and take control of the >family. > >I haven't read Jameson's article. It seems longer and perhaps more >'balanced' than Ahmad's openly political piece. Perhap's I lost interest >in it for that very reason. I think the important thing to remember here >is 'what side are you on?', as, in the words of another ghost, 'philosophy >is a political weapon'. I recommend all Marxists on this list to read >Derrida's piece in _NLR_ and Ahmad's response. Here's a quote from Ahmad >on Derrida's relation to this other ghost: > >>As regards the way Derrida formulates the issue of 'teleology' and >>'messianic escatology', he is right when he says that Althusser's >>philosophical project dissasociates Marxism from both of these. >>Althusser surely sought to retain a concept of scientificity and to >>derive the project of socialism from the contradictions of capitalism >>itself, not from some voluntaristic or quasi-Hegelian notion of History >>whereby the working class is *ordained* to overthrow capitalism (i.e. a >>teleological but also primitive, cyclical notion of history in which the >>communist society of the future returns to the primitive communism of the >>remote past, only at a much higher stage, thus closing the circle in the >>form of a Second Coming in accordance with the messianic prediction of >>Salvation). (Ahmad, 'Reconciling Derrida', p. 94) > >Nevertheless, Ahmad is somewhat kinder on Derrida than I. Read it. I'm >sure that several of Derrida's notions (like those of Jacques Lacan) may >be useful to Marxists. But in what way, and by what criteria? But by no >means should we let the deconstructivists and the psychoanalysts ride on >our backs. If need be, we should crush them under our (theoretical?) >feet. > >David. Mr. David McInerney, Political Science Program, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T., AUSTRALIA 0200. e-mail: davidmci-AT-coombs.anu.edu.au; ph: (06) 249 2134; fax: (06) 249 3051 --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005