The Communist Postscript (Pocket Communism)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Since Plato, philosophers have dreamed of establishing a rational state ruled through the power of language. In this radical and disturbing account of Soviet philosophy, Boris Groys argues that communism shares that dream and is best understood as an attempt to replace financial with linguistic bonds as the cement uniting society. The transformative power of language, the medium of equality, is the key to any new communist revolution.
dialectical materialism in the Soviet Union were simply astonished by Western critiques of this theory. For these critiques functioned in exactly the same way as the arguments of the various internal Soviet oppositions prior to the establishment of Stalinist orthodoxy. For some of these critiques, Stalinist orthodoxy was not humanist enough. Others found it to be too humanist, because it placed too much importance on humans and took too little account of the anonymous dynamics of social
constantly changed, improved, ‘updated’, modernized – and thus de-corporealized. Infinite finance would transform the entire world into a Deleuzian body without organs, in which all things would become completely fluid and immaterial. In capitalist society, money plays the same role as time in the philosophy of Heidegger. According to Heidegger, everything that exists is the way it is because it lacks the time to become otherwise. But time, as has long been known, is really money. In capitalism,
the transition from the object to its context, then there is also a reversed metanoia, which asks about the context of that context, thus leading back to the earlier perspective at a different level of reflection. It is often claimed nowadays that the conquest of a metaposition is impossible, and that metanoia is thus similarly impossible: one’s original perspective cannot be changed at will. The possibility of metanoia appears to be based solely in metaphysics, that is, in the privileging of
compromise involves financially compensating both the advocates of A and the advocates of not-A for accepting the truth of the opposing position. The sophists, who have argued in favour of both sides, receive financial compensation in just this way. It could be said, therefore, that when paradox is replaced by compromise, power over the whole passes from language to money. A compromise is a paradox that is paid not to reveal itself to be a paradox. The philosopher, by contrast, allows the full
and hopelessly gone astray in the obscurity of language – explode or deconstruct rational discourse with paradox. In this diagnosis, modernity is governed by reason that operates and calculates formal-logically and that places us helplessly at the mercy of its power. But to an unprejudiced observer, this diagnosis appears as nothing less than astonishing; here the real relations of power are truly turned on their heads. In reality, sophistical and apparently rational discourses still serve the