It suddenly occurs to me that this notion (the inescapable system lying behind everything) may well partially arise from fascism and Heidegger's disappointment with it. It was a common belief among fascists and the European right-wing more broadly that capitalist liberal democracy and communism, despite outward appearances, were really at bottom the same thing (humanism). Later, when the bottom fell out of Nazism, Heidegger revised this so that capitalist liberal democracy, communism, and fascism, despite outward appearances, were really at bottom the same thing (technological thinking). Fascism had tried to break out of the System (not that Heidegger would have used that word), but it couldn't, because the System is everywhere.
--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] note of thanks
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 9:50 AM
>
> I never really understood the appeal of Derrida for people
> who consider themselves radicals. Part of the whole point of
> Heidegger/Foucault/Derrida is that nothing ever really
> changes. The system of presence/power/signifiers always
> preserves itself. It's really rather quietist. On one level
> -- the basically deep metaphysical/theological one that
> Heidegger and Derrida were talking about* -- that's probably
> true, but it doesn't really lend itself to application on
> the political plane.
>
> *I know both of them would have eschewed those terms, but
> "theology" and "metaphysics" have technical meanings for
> Derrida and Heidegger, and I'm using them in a more everyday
> fashion.
>