once again, apologies for tardy input...
I've likened deconstruction to that which occurs when a small child asks an adult a question and upon hearing the answer asks, 'but why?.' Invariably, the adult and child go back and forth until the adult becomes frustrated and says 'because I said so, that's why.' (now there's an attempt at closure!). In a narrow sense, seems to me that deconstruction is a way of reading in which the reader is consciously ambivalent, discerning differences between meaning and what an author asserts. Something happens as child becomes adult who when, facing a questioning child, resorts to 'I said so.' Socialization makes deconstruction a *radical new way* of reading.
Given above, deconstruction can be political practice, an effort to take apart a thought system's reasoning and, perforce, political structures and social institutions that sustain it. But deconstructors generally seem to have been evasive and a(un?)historical. Derrida's _Specters of Marx_, for example, is consistent (necessarily so?) with previous work in its lack of frankness even as he engages Marx/Marxism. Well, he does say that he is certain that he isn't a Marxist, recalling the aside attributed to Marx (who Derrida refers to as 'someone') by Engels whose significance I thought Hal Draper had debunked years ago.
Re. dispute between marxists and deconstructist is an old and tired one that diverts attention and wastes energy (after all, the point is to change things, correct?). Derrida, in suggesting as he does in _SofM_, that deconstruction is an attempt to radicalize Marxism, may be ok with marxism (lower case) and/or marxisms (plural). But if Marxists have caricatured/distorted deconstruction in holding that it reduces everything to interpretation, a 'derridean extravance' of multiple and unstable identities is a difficult base upon which to build a political/social movement with its eyes on the prize. In that sense, we'll probably continue to disagree about the appearance/omission (perhaps remission is more appropriate) of class.
My point about no one ever telling me that they were active (say, in farmworker solidarity/support work, something that I've been involved in for a good while) as deconstructionists was not about their reading habits but about their identity. I'm a marxist, my politics are informed by marxism, and folks I work with politically know these things about me (not necessarily because I proclaim such stuff because I generally don't, but because of the particular focus I have in discussions, planning activities, and in actions themselves). Maybe it's just my experience, or maybe I've missed the cues, but I don't recall having similar sense about folks when it comes to deconstruction. (I've no intention of being derisive here).
Surely you don't mean to suggest that it is regrettable that I've not been reading some of the folks you mention. I mean, there's more 'out there' that I haven't read than I have read or ever will read. And there's other stuff I don't read much anymore (for example, sociology of sports & detective novels). Limited time is a factor, but we all pick & choose as interests grow, wane & renew.
I have read some Nancy & Lacoue-Labarthe. As I recall, the former's _The Inoperative Community_ positioned culture clash and imposed homogeneity as polar and undesirable opposities and then posited an idealistic community of freedom and pluralism. Claims about otherness and heterogeneity notwithstanding, Nancy may not as far from removed from liberalism as radical appearances suggest. As for the latter, his _Heidegger, Art and Politics_, in suggesting differences between marxism and fascism are akin to spats between friends, in effect, repeats the totalitarian thesis. And his antipathy for Adorno, who he takes to task for writing favorably about National Socialist poet Baldur von Schirach (apparent evident of the 'co-belonging' of fascism and marxism), is hypocritical given his apologia for Heidegger which amounts to the claim that everyone - 'left' and 'right' - has been deceived by the world-historical changes of the 20th century. Michael Hoover