{"title":"奥斯卡·德尔·巴可是个乖张的人吗?","authors":"Oscar Ariel Cabezas","doi":"10.14324/111.444.ra.2021.v6.1.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article seeks to contextualise the ‘Heideggerian’ or destructive critique against Lenin in the 1980s. The hypothesis I develop is based on Oscar Del Barco’s critique against Leninism and on the theoretical moments in which this critique has been resisted by other Latin American thinkers. Del Barco is one of the leading philosophers in Latin America. His extraordinary effectiveness reconstructs the history and thought of the Bolshevik leader in order to abandon the leader’s enlightened programme. I argue that the demonisation of Lenin and the complex relationship with a demand for the authenticity of the Bolsheviks’ original project leads the philosopher to omit the birth or the genealogy of extreme liberalism or neoliberalism. The demonisation of Lenin and the omission of the historical context in which he writes makes Del Barco’s philosophy a propitious place for the neutralisation of the relationship between politics and emancipatory programmes. This hypothesis is confronted with the resistance of authors such as Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, García Linera, Bolívar Echeverría, Dominico Losurdo, Marta Harnecker and Tomás Moulian, among others. The article concludes by affirming that the Leninism reloaded by these authors constitutes a ‘toolbox’ for thinking the conflictive and never-finished relationship between politics and emancipation.","PeriodicalId":205578,"journal":{"name":"Radical Americas","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Oscar Del Barco a perverse man?\",\"authors\":\"Oscar Ariel Cabezas\",\"doi\":\"10.14324/111.444.ra.2021.v6.1.19\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article seeks to contextualise the ‘Heideggerian’ or destructive critique against Lenin in the 1980s. The hypothesis I develop is based on Oscar Del Barco’s critique against Leninism and on the theoretical moments in which this critique has been resisted by other Latin American thinkers. Del Barco is one of the leading philosophers in Latin America. His extraordinary effectiveness reconstructs the history and thought of the Bolshevik leader in order to abandon the leader’s enlightened programme. I argue that the demonisation of Lenin and the complex relationship with a demand for the authenticity of the Bolsheviks’ original project leads the philosopher to omit the birth or the genealogy of extreme liberalism or neoliberalism. The demonisation of Lenin and the omission of the historical context in which he writes makes Del Barco’s philosophy a propitious place for the neutralisation of the relationship between politics and emancipatory programmes. This hypothesis is confronted with the resistance of authors such as Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, García Linera, Bolívar Echeverría, Dominico Losurdo, Marta Harnecker and Tomás Moulian, among others. The article concludes by affirming that the Leninism reloaded by these authors constitutes a ‘toolbox’ for thinking the conflictive and never-finished relationship between politics and emancipation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":205578,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radical Americas\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radical Americas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ra.2021.v6.1.19\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radical Americas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ra.2021.v6.1.19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文试图将20世纪80年代对列宁的“海德格尔式”或破坏性批评置于语境中。我提出的假设是基于奥斯卡·德尔·巴可(Oscar Del Barco)对列宁主义的批判,以及这种批判遭到其他拉美思想家抵制的理论时刻。德尔·巴可是拉丁美洲著名的哲学家之一。为了摒弃布尔什维克领袖的开明纲领,他以非凡的效率重构了这位布尔什维克领袖的历史和思想。我认为,对列宁的妖魔化,以及对布尔什维克最初计划的真实性要求的复杂关系,导致哲学家忽略了极端自由主义或新自由主义的诞生或谱系。对列宁的妖魔化和对他写作的历史背景的遗漏,使得德尔巴可的哲学成为消除政治与解放计划之间关系的有利场所。这一假设遭到了Ernesto Laclau、Chantal Mouffe、García Linera、Bolívar Echeverría、Dominico Losurdo、Marta Harnecker和Tomás Moulian等人的反对。文章最后肯定,这些作者重新装载的列宁主义构成了一个思考政治与解放之间的冲突和从未完成的关系的“工具箱”。
This article seeks to contextualise the ‘Heideggerian’ or destructive critique against Lenin in the 1980s. The hypothesis I develop is based on Oscar Del Barco’s critique against Leninism and on the theoretical moments in which this critique has been resisted by other Latin American thinkers. Del Barco is one of the leading philosophers in Latin America. His extraordinary effectiveness reconstructs the history and thought of the Bolshevik leader in order to abandon the leader’s enlightened programme. I argue that the demonisation of Lenin and the complex relationship with a demand for the authenticity of the Bolsheviks’ original project leads the philosopher to omit the birth or the genealogy of extreme liberalism or neoliberalism. The demonisation of Lenin and the omission of the historical context in which he writes makes Del Barco’s philosophy a propitious place for the neutralisation of the relationship between politics and emancipatory programmes. This hypothesis is confronted with the resistance of authors such as Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, García Linera, Bolívar Echeverría, Dominico Losurdo, Marta Harnecker and Tomás Moulian, among others. The article concludes by affirming that the Leninism reloaded by these authors constitutes a ‘toolbox’ for thinking the conflictive and never-finished relationship between politics and emancipation.