Posted by: Rajesh Shukla | August 16, 2010

From three voices of Marx


[..] Let us not develop these remarks any further here. The example of Marx helps us to understand that the voice of writing , a voice of unceasing contestation, must constantly develop itself and break itself into multiple forms. The communist voice is always at once tacit and violent, political and scholarly direct, indirect, total and fragmentary, lengthy and almost instantaneous. Marx does not live comfortably with this plurality of languages that are always colliding and dis-joining with each other in him. Even if these languages seem to converge toward the same end, they could not be translated into each other, and their heterogeneity, the divergence or gap, the distance that decenters them, renders them non-contemporaneous. In producing an effect of reducible distortion, the oblige those who have to withstand the reading (the practice) of them to submit themselves to an ceaseless recasting.

The word “science” is becoming again a key word. Lets admit it. But let us remember that although there may be science, there is not yet science, because the specificity of science always remains dependent on ideology, an ideology that no particular science, be it human science, is able to reduce today; and on the other hand, let us remember that no writer, even if he is a Marxist, can tun himself over to writing as to a kind of knowledge.

–Blanchot (three voices of Marx)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: