Marx through Post Structuralism | An Analysis

Marx Structuralism

An alternative novel to Marx’s, who studied at the Anglo-American Academy in the 1990s. So through the structures / Simon Choat can be analyzed. Like the novels in which the Axis powers won World War II or Brown’s raid on John Harper’s ferry. Within the academy, at least for those interested in “ideology,” for decades, there has been a tussle between Marxism and the post-structural system, each in an enemy camp, striving for intellectual supremacy. The allegations on all sides were something like this: Marxists were accused of being fully married, television, and financially committed, while subsequent structures were accused of forgetting history, the agency. Doing, and replacing politics with language. This controversy is now over as new philosophical perspectives emerge and the arrogance of ideology is over. Choat, however, rewrites this date by reviewing some of the later texts after the central structure {text}: Levardard, Derrida, Foucault, and Deloitte. It is not intended to make post-structuralists corrupt Marxists or to argue that Marx was a post-structuralist event lawless, but to show that post-structuralism was formed by engagement with Marx. An important engagement. Simon Chott has made good use of the similarities between television, marriage, and engagement.

Each chapter of this book deals with the specific journey of each thinker, the critique, and (sometimes) the escape from Marx, a specific travelogue. These journeys take a very different path: from Leotard, who, as a critical Marxist intellectual, moved away from Marx, to the well-known theory of the end of the epic, the epic Derrida. , Who shunned Marx during the turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s, only to declare his allegiance late, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, with Specters of Marx, who became Marx’s heir apparent. Configured from. ۔ The different ways in which these thinkers turn the book into a series of essays hints at the danger of post-structuralism and various variations on Marx’s themes. There are some contradictions in this book. From which the reader can raise new intellectual questions. This book is also a competitive crisis of thought.

Chavat avoids this in connection with conducting this particular examination. At the end of the introduction and end of the exams, the book frame. In the first case, Al-Thoser acts like the real thing. However, the Chaot’s are less interested in the intellectual history that would put Althoser at the beginning of the later structure, rather than as a precursor to the problem that has largely clashed between Marx and post-structuralism. This problem can be summed up by a critic of humanity, history, and Hegel.

The work of Althoser in the 1960s focused on spreading the idea of ​​Marx to the rest of the child, arguing for a break between the young Marx and the older, true Marx who “history without any subject or purpose.” As a matter of fact, the closest and subsequent structuralists to the three critics to describe this formula share this critique, but the difference between young and old Marx Move to all critics. Al-Thoser also appeared in the last chapters of the book, as well as as the man who followed the article on “slain” materialism, which shows that he has learned so much since the creation. As much as it has started some of its basic trends. The purpose of Al-Thoser’s presence is to suggest that there is little to decide between Marxism or post-structuralism, as it is developing a materialist philosophy.

The fact that all concerned thinkers continue to criticize Hegel, historiography, and humanity is not intended to suggest a fundamental unity of any plan. If the historical religion is taken as part of its center, and it is instead of the other two, which is in some way the center of the re-reading of Chaut (Hegel is more or less left, leaving Marx and humanity It has become possible to focus on, as we will see, basically something is considered to be associated with hysteria), it is possible to see how different philosophers have criticized different and even contradictory critiques of historiography. What is stated of Simon Choat? The book is not in chronological order. Derrida is the last to write on Marx, and most other thinkers ended their book long after Marx had completed his various trials. , But they have been examined in front of chapters in Phuket or Deloitte. Nor has the book been arranged according to or against any general debate. In addition, the chapters are grouped according to the different levels of interference of thinkers in Marx’s thought. Leotard and Derrida criticize the general theories of history, lost beginnings, and returns, while Foucault and Deleuze may be more concerned with power and politics, and include Marx at the level of capitalist critique rather than overworking ontology or existentialism. Can be considered It is in the organization of these criticisms that they begin to become something else in terms of mere intent.


1] Louis Althusser, Essays in Self-Criticism, translated by Graham Lock (London: New Left Books, 1976) p. 94.
[2] Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: Minnesota, 1984) p. xxiv.
[3] Fredric Jameson, “Introduction,” to The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, (Minneapolis: Minnesota, 1984) p. xiv

Leave a Reply