Dec 16 2008
Specters of Marx The State of the Debt The Work of Mourning and the New International Routledge Classics
Written in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and within the context of a critique of a “new world order” that proclaims the death of Marx and Marxism, Jacques Derrida undertakes a reading of Marx’s “spectropoetics” — his obsession with ghosts, specters and spirits. Derrida argues that there is more than one spirit of Marx and that it is the responsibility of his heirs — we are all heirs of Marx — to sift through the possible legacies, the possible spirits, reaffirming one and not the other. He leads beyond the deafening disavowal of Marx today, a disavowal he sees as an attempt to exorcise Marx’s ghost.
Specters of Marx represents renowned philosopher Jacques Derrida’s first major work on Marx and his definitive entry into social and political philosophy.
User Ratings and Reviews
5 Stars hidden in the depths of words, nothing comes
If you come to “Spectres” expecting find some new insight, some vision to see into Marx, and the canonical texts, as “The German Ideology”,Derrida cannot help you or the cause of illumination.Your eyes have grown old and weary trying to find where this light may reside,the epistemic. In fact only history itself and the correlations of whatever exists are there waiting for that, to interpret,to re-absorb to find/locate a new context, a new air to breath, or do we need to purchase that as well, as we now do with water;or as in South America today the turn to the Left away from the hardened corruption hardened with the New York Banks. But now the time from the bottom upwards can see itslef, time again will give it content; and Derrida will not be there,he cannot be there for his help, his aid is filled with contengencies, and reservations in these regards you come away from this work wondering where and what does it strike?, what resonance does it proclaim?; for long ago he(Derrida) found activism to be an end to itself,for itself although Derrida’s voice for the dispossessed has seldom lent itself to the cause of Palestine.Why erect barriers?He has forgotten the face of prejudice? Yes or No?He speaks about his childhood and the prejudice he suffered, but then extend this in time, to aid the living,or do we simply forget? where Derrida can you have done this? So conceptual borders and barriers and vocal mantras are erected all the same over time, over place he didn’t have although we seldom see this time in concrete form.
These were tail-end Lectures on the demise of an Ideology again the late Fifties also proclaimed an end to ideology,it is an uncomfortable word now with the demise and threat of Soviet Communism, Fukayama’s neat little ode to ideology now forgotten itself. The purpose of Derrida is to create, to create concepts,fusions, fidelities, and areas where he can escape that is the line of productive value, and his language does have its illuminations and points of curiosity. It is not a place to build however,to foster ties with, it is a though secluded,yet not altogether hostile; nor does Derrida’s work set a continuation that would let you see some other place certainly not within the dirty vagaries and betrayed ambience of politics.Although following ancient thought all is politics, wherever it may interface with the human spirit.We then see on this “Spectres” what is not here. We have known something is rotten in Denamrk to fill in this void with Hamlet, and what “spectre” still roams the earth is all bound to human hunger, human greed, to erecting Walls yet again, to predestine another series of hypocrisies, where again Derrida’s voice fails to look. He may look but he keeps his words, his textures inside. Being outward has more definition and committment, and Derrida’s work betrays him, for we only need to look at his words. In the end we are given structures, neatly persuasive, to avoid facing the lives of those dispossessed, those who cannot now breath the air freely, nor have the aid of medical service, or not knowing where I will be tommorrow with friends,in friendship with whom? Friendship is proximity, so proximity to the “spectre” cannot be found here in words.
5 Stars A few extra comments…
The pro-Derrida and anti-Derrida standpoints are well represented in these reviews; however, there is a more important point that has not been made. I read this work much like Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, meaning that its significance remains to be seen–for now to come. Now, take that as “post-structuralist obscurantism” all you want. I will shoot back just as Derrida did a hundred times: You have not read enough and you clearly do not understand his project.
With that being said, this is not even really a work on Marxism, historical materialism, or even “social” movements, per se. I read this work as affirming the undying desire for emancipation and uncovering the limits of the Marxist/leftist movements and how they are treated within academia. Marx is used as one example among many possible, just as he uses Fukuyama. I would also disagree with the previous reviewer and say that the more I read it, the more elucidating, exciting, and emancipatory this text became. This text is about infinite responsibility, inheritance, and creating “a new opening of event-ness.”
I’ll close with a quote from Jean Birmbaum who writes, “It is here that we find again the theme of transmission, of legacy, the ‘politics of memory, of inheritance, and of generations’ that is sought in Derrida’s Specters of Marx, on the horizon of an obligation to justice and an endless responsibility before ‘the ghosts of those who are not yet born or who are already dead.’”
1 Star the indestructable Left!
The whole point of the book is to say that Marx may have got some details wrong, but that ultimately, these details are not what’s really important. And what’s really important is the fight for a “better” world; against exploitation, greed, the dominance of the weak by the strong etc etc. This is the “spectre” in question- the fight for a better world, the discontent with the present.
The problem with this nonsense is that it’s the Utopian Socialism that Marx explicitly denounced! In a nutshell, it’s a particular morality/ideology that’s driving this discourse, but it won’t admit this to its readers (and itself?). Why? Because it knows that this left wing morality is NOT a given, and cannot be justified without sophistry. The “beautiful passages” about suffering, injustice, poverty etc are humbug. There is more “suffering” numerically simply because there are more people, and there are more people because wealth has increased.
Derrida’s 10 modern “sins” proclamation (and it’s no coincidence he’s using religious terminology) is laughable.
As with all Leftists , on no occasion are the mass of people ever responsible for anything bad. Responsibility is always to be found among the rich, the strong, the powerful etc.
I don’t see how one can honestly rate Nietzsche and Freud while championing Marx. Many French intellectuals grouped the three of them together, but this was because they wanted the insights of Freud and Nietzsche, and they had a moral kinship with Marx. But neither Nietzsche or Freud believed in equality, human perfectibility, the eradication of suffering, or politics!
Apologists for Marx and fans of Derrida will love this book, and that’s the most telling criticism of this book I can offer.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
