Geoffrey Bennington - Scatter 1: The Politics of Politics in Foucault, Heidegger, and Derrida
What if political rhetoric is unavoidable, an irreducible part of politics itself? In contrast to the familiar denunciations of political horse-trading, grandstanding, and corporate manipulation from those lamenting the crisis in liberal democracy, this book argues that the “politics of politics,” usually associated with rhetoric and sophistry, is, like it or not, part of politics from the start. Denunciations of the sorry state of current politics draw on a dogmatism and moralism that share an essentially metaphysical and Platonic ground. Failure to deconstruct that ground generates a philosophically and politically debilitating selfrighteousness that this book attempts to understand and undermine. After a detailed analysis of Foucault’s influential late concept of parrhesia, which is shown to be both philosophically and politically insufficient, close readings of Heidegger, Kierkegaard, and Derrida trace complex relations between sophistry, rhetoric, and philosophy; truth and untruth; decision; madness and stupidity in an exploration of the possibility of developing an affirmative thinking of politics that is not mortgaged to the metaphysics of presence.
It is suggested that Heidegger’s complex accounts of truth and decision must indeed be read in close conjunction with his notorious Nazi commitments but nevertheless contain essential insights that many strident responses to those commitments ignore or repress. Those insights are here developed via an ambitious account of Derrida’s often misunderstood interruption of teleology into a deconstructive retrieval of the concept of dignity. This lucid and often witty account of a crucial set of developments in twentieth-century thought prepares the way for a more general re-reading of the possibilities of political philosophy that will be undertaken in Volume 2 of this work, under the sign of an essential scatter that defines the political as such.
My guest is David Harvey, a scholar, geographer and social theorist.
He is a Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Geography at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has served on the faculty of Johns Hopkins University and held the Halford Mackinder Chair in Geography at the University of Oxford.
Harvey is perhaps most well known for his university course on Marx’s Capital. For over 50 years, he has taught and studied these foundational texts. He is considered by many to be the most influential Marxist scholar alive today. We discuss his 29th and most recent book The Story of Capital, out now from Verso Books.
Our conversation explores the foundation for a Marxist analysis of value and political economy. What are the defining features of this new era? In a period of mounting crises, what forces might intervene to correct our stagnant economic systems?
Arthur Bradley - Originary Technicity: The Theory of Technology from Marx to Derrida
This book is the first critical genealogy of Jacques Derrida's philosophy of technology. It traces the evolution of what Derrida calls 'originary technicity' via an appraisal of his own philosophy of technology together with that of key interlocutors including Marx, Freud, Lacan, Heidegger and Bernard Stiegler.
Татьяна Ворожейкина - Венесуэла: от диктатуры к протекторату
Готовность пожертвовать Мадуро, так или иначе проявленная всей верхушкой чавистского режима, стала важнейшим фактором успеха американской операции. После 3 января ни один из видных чавистов не выступил против временного президента, легитимность которого обеспечивается администрацией Трампа. Не было и массовых выступлений в поддержку свергнутого Мадуро, за исключением нескольких акций в первые дни, собранных Кабельо из подопечных ему colectivos – полувоенных формирований, которые были созданы в поселках
бедноты и использовались властью для нападений на оппозицию.
What can such authoritarian testerics tell us about the maturing fascisms of the age? The term “liberal fascisms” is something of a paradox, and Žižek offers scant help in explaining it. Yet it is a useful provocation. It is clear that, for over a decade now, there has been a symbiosis between hard-center liberalism and the rising far right. This has been mutually beneficial: The threat of fascism whips the electorate into line behind austerian liberals, while the resulting social misery and anomie provides the emotional mulch for rising fascism. Both prefer it if the left is excluded from the picture. In the context of Gaza, of course, that symbiosis has become a global coalition headed by Washington. Žižek is right to say, riffing on Max Horkheimer, that “whoever is not willing to talk (critically) about liberalism should also keep quiet about fascism.”