Fragment: Deconstruction and Marxism

Deconstructive literary analysis has advanced humanity through the placement of voice as a construct of authority and origin, not as the byproduct of some hierarchal anatomy.—Snoot de Seuil

….By setting itself up as a method which posits its own voice as a playful arbiter of value with rhetorical gamesmanship. It is hierarchical in its aims and unabashedly eats the cake it denies others.

Human justice and equality hasn’t improved a jot since 1965. Intertextuality is a scholastic move which rewards pedantry and semantic wars above analysis of real human conditions. It assails hegemony in texts and whistles past it in the real world. It is a boutique style scholasticism. Deconstructionism never once made an important political stand. Never once argued, throughout its mountains of analysis, for human rights. The “hierarchal anatomy”(sic) one sees is merely a marionette. The banalization of truth value created a vacuum where every theoretic effort earned its merits on its methodological success, regardless of any moral consideration.

Derrida, late in life, increasingly became aware of the commodification of discourse and “counterfeiting” in Deconstructionism. He grew disillusioned with how a liberal art(criticism) had become dehumanized into semiological games on an hyperinflated exchange. He regretted his “supplement” and “differance”.

The man behind the curtains of Deconstructionism, the Wizard, was a soi disant National Socialist and Jargonist, Martin Heidegger. Heidegger was, despite scandal, a great thinker and actually questioned widely held assumptions in Ontology and Metaphysics. Deconstructionism shrugged off such rigor and relegated itself to Literary Theory(not that literary theory can’t be important–but it does scarce honor to a man who advocated “piety in questioning and thinking” about fundamental assumptions about “being and its relation to the world”.) The Deconstructionists took their “piety” and questioned texts and not the human condition. In the end it became so enamored with its own reflections upon texts it drowned as a fully textualized Narcissus.

Deconstructive Literary Theory “liberates” semantic value into a “Rhetorical Economy”, the efficiency of narratives. Thusly, it takes intrinsic value and exploits it as an exchange value. It is truly a jargonistic “Hegelian night in which all cows are gray”. Interesting that its rise coincided with neo-Liberal Economic Theory, Game Theory, and Globalism. It commodifies truth on a rhetorical exchange. By this act of levelling it allows “market conditions” to hash out values. It is a method which valorizes choices and terms to essential truth status in texts. Some call it textual strip mining. It’s all well and good when exposing and highlighting racist tropes in Colonialist Literature. But even then it’s all wrapped in a sense of piquant play. Applied as criticism it consistently mines mountains of value out of a few terms.

Interesting most Deconstructionists either repented and became Marxists or devolved into apologists for Fascism.

Historical Materialism(Marx and the young Lukacs) has lasting value and actually considers man as the root in all human relations. It honors use value over the debasements of exchange value. Volumes 2 and 3 of Das Kapital painted a picture of the Hypertrophy of Capitalism into Financialization and greater, Global, accumulation of capital into fewer hands. Marx’s eschatology aside, his critique of Capitalist political economy stands stronger today than Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, and Krugman. The Austrian and Chicago School are producing policy papers about confronting economic conditions Marx forecasted in the mid 19th century. Reading Das Kapital in full was a strong antidote to the pious frauds of Globalism’s propaganda. Labor value has been stripped bare with greater competition. Greater need for Surplus Value creates a slave labor class in Asia and destroys the Middle Class in the West. Living Wages since 1975...