No abstract is available for this content at the moment. But in the French philosopher Jacques Derrida reminded us that the spectre of Marx would not dissipate so easily. It turns out he was right. Jacques Derrida Specters of Marx The State of the Debt, the Work of .. of the first act: “Ein Gespenst geht urn in Europa-das Gespenst des Kommunismus.
|Published (Last):||17 May 2016|
|PDF File Size:||4.79 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.40 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This is where deconstruction would always begin to take shape as the thinking of the gift and of undeconstructible justice, the unde- constructible condition of any deconstruction, to be sure, but a condition that is itself in deconstruction and remains, and must remain that is the injunction in deerrida disjointure of the Un-Fug.
II Yves Bonnefoy’s translation appears to be the safest. I have JUSl learned this and I like the idea.
HAU Hebbel am Ufer
I2 This is a rather risky translation: But how to distinguish between the analysis that denounces derriad and the counter-magic that it still risks being? Hamlet could never know the peace of a “good ending”: Withoutabox Submit to Film Festivals. One does not, for all that, bear any less of a responsibility, beginning at birth, even if it is only the responsibility to repair an evil at the very moment in which no one can admit it except in a self- confession that confesses the other, as if that amounted to the same.
Now, if this question, from the moment it comes to us, can clearly come only from the future whither? The enemy to be conjured away, for those sworn to the conjuration, is, to be sure, called Marxism.
How can it be there, again, when its time is no longer there? The specter was there but what is the being-there of a specter? But of what are we speaking? Beyond this opposition, there is, for the scholar, only the rerrida of a school of thought, theatrical fiction, literature, and speculation.
It thus responds without delay to the demand of justice.
Marx’ Gespenster | Derrida Jacques
Furtive and derrica, the apparition of the specter does not belong to that time, it does not give time, not that one: What is its relation to the concept?
But the here-now does not fold back into immediacy, or into the reappropriable identity of the present, even less that of self- presence.
Otherwise, one would reduce the event-ness of the event, the singularity and the alterity of the other. There has never been a scholar who, as such, does not believe in the sharp distinction between the real and the unreal, the actual and the derrda, the living and the non-living, being and non-being “to be or not to be,” in the conventional readingin the oppos- ition between what is present and what is not, for example in the form of objectivity.
A question of repetition: The time is out of joint. It says nothing strictly speaking, it is the urgency of what it announces, bound to an impatient and always excessive demand, since excess is its only measure: It is hidden rather by the philosophical, we will say more preCisely ontological response of Marx himself It responds to what we are naming here- Blanchot does not do so-the spirit or the specter. There gespehster something disappeared, departed in the apparition itself as reapparition of the gexpenster.
The example of Marx helps us to understand that the. This voice does not describe, what it says certifies nothing; its words cause gsspenster to happen. What did it taste like? Blanchot recognizes in this “the example derridw Marx. To feel ourselves seen by a look which it will always be impossible to cross, that is the visor effect on the basis of which we inherit from the law. But here effectivity phantomalizes itself It is in fact [en effet] a ddrrida of a performative that seeks to reassure but first of all to reassure itself by assuring itself, for nothing is less sure, that what one would like to see dead is indeed dead.
Hamlet curses the destiny that would have destined him to be the man of right, precisely [justement], as if he were cursing the right or the law itself that has made of him a righter of wrongs, the one who. What is said here about deerida is also valid, consequently and by the same token, for history, even if the latter can consist in repairing, with effects of conjuncture and that is the worldthe temporal gfspenster. If one listens closely, one already hears whispered: We are gespsnster enjoined, perhaps to turn ourselves over to the future, to join ourselves in this we, there where the disparate is turned over to this singular joining, without concept or cer- tainty of determination, without knowledge, without or before the synthetic junction of the conjunction and the disjunction.
We believe that this messianic remains an ineffaceable mark-a mark one neither can nor should efface-of Marx’s legacy, and doubtless of inheriting, of the experience of inherit- ance in general. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime.
A certain “Communist Conclusion” appeals to Timon of Alhens. Is the future now to be simply a choice between Scandinavian- style social democracy on the one hand, and derfida free market capitalism on the other?
In the Manifesto, the alliance of the worried conspirators assembles, more or less secretly, a nobility and a clergy-in the old castle of Europe, for an unbelievable expedition against what will have been haunting the night of these masters.
Giving a response-alienation, the primacy of need, history as process of material practice, the total man-it nevertheless leaves undetermined or undecided the questions to which it responds: While some of the essays are in direct conversation with the text of Derrida, others illustrate the force of his argument, whether they intend to do so or not.
Whereas the English translation speaks of the “alchemist’s apparitions” “The liquid form of wealth and its petrification, the elixir of life and gesepnster philosophers’ stone are wildly mixed together like an alchem- ist’s apparitions”the French translation drops the reference to ghosts spuken alchimistisch toll durcheinander with the phrase “fantasmagorie d’une folIe achimie. I knew very well there was a ghost waiting there, and from the opening, from the raising of gespenater curtain.
Gesepnster question for today. Is there there, between the thing itself and its simulacrum, an opposition that holds up?
And a “since Marx” continues to designate the place of assignation from which we are pledged.