
The gravest and most painful testimony of the modern world, the one that possibly involves all other testimonies to which this epoch must answer (by virtue of some unknown decree or necessity, for we bear witness also to the exhaustion of thinking through History), is the testimony of the dissolution, the dislocation, or the conflagration of community. Communism, as Sartre said, is “the unsurpassable horizon of our time,” and it is so in many senses-political, ideological, and strategic. But not least important among these senses is the following consideration, quite foreign to Sartre’s intentions: the word “communism” stands as an emblem of the desire to discover or rediscover a place of community at once beyond social divisions and beyond subordination to technopolitical dominion, and thereby beyond such wasting away of liberty, of speech, or of simple happiness as comes about whenever these become subjugated to the exclusive order of privatization; and finally, more simply and even more decisively, a place from which to surmount the unraveling that occurs with the death of each one of us-that death that, when no longer anything more than the death of the individual, carries an unbearable burden and collapses into insignificance.
Jean-Luc Nancy, The Inoperative Community
A reflection on “communism” …
Communism, The Word
Notes for the London Conference Birbeck College
The following are the notes that Jean-Luc Nancy prepared for the conference ‘On the Idea of Communism’, March 2009. An edited version is available in Costas Douzinas & Slavoj Zizek (eds), The Idea of Communism (Verso, London 2010) 145–53.
…
Continue reading









Jean-Luc Nancy: Populism, Democracy, and Neofascism: Two Essays
LARB – the Los Angeles Review of Books (17/02/2019) presents two recent essays by Jean-Luc Nancy, translated from the French by Sarah Clift.
Populism and Democracy
Populism and democracy are an odd couple. The first, populism, rejects the pejorative connotation that its name represents for the second, democracy, which it in turn criticizes for being hypocritical. The second declares itself the sole form of legitimate existence. Both of them claim to be supremely popular. Their virulent opposition in the current discourse is matched only by the indecision that hangs over their respective meanings. What “people” are they talking about, both together and separately?
Continue reading →