jibrinnoor112

05/03/2023

History maker

05/03/2023

05/03/2023

We are Red YNWA.

05/03/2023

24/02/2023

I have avoided doing what most obviously might be
expected from a book with this title. I have not compared deconstruction
with recent marxist philosophy, although I have tried to show the philosophical relationship between Derrida and Marx, as well as between deconstruction and dialectics. I have taken this approach in part because
I wished to perform a more political and less scholarly service by showing
how what I consider to be an important critical philosophy might be of
political use to marxists and in part because the term "marxist philosophy"
has always struck me as being peculiarly oxymoronic, particularly when
the term designates theoretical battles over the nature of knowledge
without any concern for their immediate relation to the various social
struggles. Consider the example of volume I of Dialectics and Method,
Issues in Marxist Philosophy, in which the editors lament the inability of
marxist philosophy to date to confront "the really fundamental philosophical issues," and they argue that "Marxist philosophy can only advance if it reaches down to the most general and abstract of philosophical
categories." One could also argue that marxist philosophy cannot "advance" -that is, further the advent of socialism-unless it addresses concrete issues instead of abstract categories. The editors of Issues do not
confront the question of what it means for marxist philosophy to "advance" in and of itself, separate from race, class, and s*x struggles . They
do express "hope" of a possible "link up" between philosophy and the
workers' movement, which "might draw" upon marxist philosophy "in
its struggle against capital." 1 It would seem, then, that marxist pKilosophy,
from the point of view of the editors at least, is not directly bound up
with the struggle against capital, the patriarchy, and racial chauvinism.

24/02/2023

Marxism
and deconstruction can be
articulated, but in one fundamental way they cannot be related. Deconstruction is a philosophical interrogation of some of the major concepts
and practices of philosophy. Marxism, in contrast, is not a philosophy. It
names revolutionary movements, based among other things on Marx's
critical analysis of capitalism, the theory and practice of which aim at the
replacement of a society founded on the accumulation of social wealth in
private hands with one in which freely cooperating producers hold social
wealth in common. Millions have been killed because they were marxists;
no one will be obliged to die because s/he is a deconstructionist.
Nevertheless, I will argue that deconstructive philosophy has positive
implications for marxism and that these implications are not only philosophical, but political. One common conclusion promoted by both movements is that philosophy cannot be apolitical and that politics often rests
upon philosophic or conceptual presuppositions. To articulate deconstructive analysis with marxism, therefore, does not imply comparing
philosophemes or ideas. Rather, it consists of two activities: first, the
winnowing out of metaphysical elements in the conceptual infrastructure
of marxism, especially regarding its adherence to classical dialectics; and
second, the use of deconstructive analysis as a weapon of marxist political
criticism and as a means of providing a theoretical underpinning for the
antimetaphysical and postleninist practical advances that are already
under way within marxism. Crucial in this latter regard will be the relationship between what deconstruction accomplishes as a critique of institutions and the new developments that are occurring in socialist
feminism and in the theory of autonomy.