Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
European Tribune - Comments - Ideology revisited : Dead or Alive? A Non Issue!
A nice touch of skepticism, for a change.
Any Marxism worthy of the name does affirm a "presence," an "ontology," a material reality that cannot be  ignored in any ideology critique. For Marxism this is the premise of historical materialism, which unlike Derrida's deconstruction, clings to the distinctions between different kinds of "ghosts." It situates different specters or ideologies as historical products, not as categories of thought.
Because Derrida was a true philosopher, while Marx was a mere Hegel-impregnated atheist bourgeois?
Source here.

If you don't have any arguments against Marx, as you don't because you have swallowed caricatures of his views, just call him names. In fact in your source, we find that Derrida, who has taken the trouble to study what Marx actually said, is far from sharing your view:


Derrida forcefully explains that the so-called end of Marxism, the death of Marx, and the attempts to exorcise Marx's spirit(s) and specter(s), are all forms of political dogma that he rejects. He also maintains, in his exchange with his critics, that he has never been engaged in such a project.

http://www.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.500/10.3.r_anshen.txt

Another example:


Hegel was a genuine philosopher, Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky were not. So the political theory may say communism or marxism to be political ideologies. But since I don't think they possess a true political philosophy, I have a hard time with that label.

What is the evidence for that as far as Marx is concerned ? Is it that Hegel was a professor of philosophy and Marx was not ?  The more important question is who was the more important thinker ? Clearly Marx, and partly because he correctly saw that Hegel's approach to history - not surprisingly for a "genuine philosopher" - mistakenly placed far too much emphasis on ideas. Very few historions these days would ignore the crucial role of the means and relations of production, even if they are not marxist historians. Due to this insight Marx then studied economics, rather reluctantly, as well as politics and cultural analysis. In this he was true to the spirit of Hegel, who emphasised that things were connected, while putting it into practice more fully and more critically:


Hegel purports to demonstrate that thought can find a place for all kinds of phenomena of the modern world. Anything, indeed, that is to be discovered existing there has to be shown to be there of necessity. However miserable people may be in such situations, they will be consoled when they hear how it is all for the best `in the end'. The dialectic moves on past their misery, majestically carrying `us' - `we who look on' - to the heights of the Absolute.

In Marx, on the contrary, the forms demonstrate in their movement the way the dialectical trick works. They show us, step by step, how the inhuman relations inside which we live our lives disguise themselves as `natural'. This is the direct opposite of his `great master'. Hegel locks the gates of our inhuman prison, fixing to them the sign `Freedom'. Marx wants to show us, not just that we are imprisoned, certainly not a utopian picture of what lies beyond the walls, but how we locked ourselves in and thus how to get out, that is, to live as humans.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith4.htm



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 06:39:42 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series