The Communist Postscript

by Boris Groys

Since Plato, philosophers have dreamed of establishing a rational state ruled through the power of language. In this radical and disturbing account of Soviet philosophy, Boris Groys argues that communism shares that dream and is best understood as an attempt to replace financial with linguistic bonds as the cement uniting society. The transformative power of language, the medium of equality, is the key to any new communist revolution.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Theory, History, Russia, Economics

160 pages, Hardcover

First published May 31, 2005

About the author

Boris Efimovich Groys (born 19 March 1947) is an art critic, media theorist, and philosopher. He is currently a Global Distinguished Professor of Russian and Slavic Studies at New York University and Senior Research Fellow at the Karlsruhe University of Arts and Design in Karlsruhe, Germany. He has been a professor of Aesthetics, Art History, and Media Theory at the Karlsruhe University of Arts and Design/Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe and an internationally acclaimed Professor at a number of universities in the United States and Europe, including the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California and the Courtauld Institute of Art London.

Reviews

[Amirsaman · Rating 4 out of 5]

روایت بوریس گرویس از کمونیسم و زندگی در شوروی، بسیار متفاوت است با روایت‌های مرسوم راست و چپ. زندگی فرد شوروی در بستر زبان است؛ جایی که زبان جای مناسبات کالایی اقتصادی را می‌گیرد و بنابر تمامیت زبان، فرد دیگر منفعت خاصی ندارد و در دریای ماتریالیسم دیالکتیک غرق است؛ پذیرفتن پارادوکس‌ها بدون حل‌وفصلِ منطقی-صوریِ آن‌ها.
نویسنده ایده‌های نابش را به بهترین شکل توضیح می‌دهد، و دقیقا این ناب بودن افکارش است که سخنانش را چنین متفاوت می‌کنند، به حدی که گویی با دفاعیه‌ای فلسفی/زبان‌شناختی بر شوروی و استالین مواجه هستیم. اما برای نزدیکی به کتاب، همان‌طور که حرف اساسی نویسنده هم هست، باید دستگاه منطقی سرمایه‌دارانه‌مان را کنار بگذاریم.

سوالاتی برای من پیش می‌آید. آیا واقعا استالین نهایتا در عمل و سخنان حزبی‌اش نظرات مخالفان را هم لحاظ می‌کرد (وفاداری به ماتریالیسم دیالکتیک) و مشکلش با مخالفان بخاطر مخالفت آن‌ها با مخالفانشان بود؟! تصمیم دیالکتیکی لنین در این‌که هم نماینده بفرستیم به مجلس تزاری و هم با رژیم مبارزه کنیم، آیا چیزی بیشتر از حدوسط‌گیری و اعتدال بود؟ فرق دیالکتیک ماتریالیسم با «همه‌چی خوبه‌ی» پست‌مدرنیسم چیست؟ آیا «شرایط انضمامی حیات مادی جامعه» که استالین در جزوه‌هایش آن را در برابر «اصول عقلِ انسانی» علم می‌کند، چیزی غیر از مصلحت‌اندیشی بر حسب شرایط است؟

اما شاید عجیب‌ترین ادعای گرویس در فصل آخر باشد، که پایان شوروی را تحقق کامل کمونیسم می‌داند، و پروژه‌ای برای تکرار کمونیسم: یعنی پادشاهی فلسفه، منتها خلاف جمهور افلاطون، در شوروی، نه نخبگان، که هر شهروندی فیلسوف است. با خودپایان‌دهیِ شوروی از بالا، متناسب با دیدگاه ماتریالیسم دیالکتیک، از پروژه به زمینه‌ی آن (که ضد پروژه است: سرمایه‌داری) گذر می‌کنیم (متانویا). «اما وقتی تغییر دیگر عبارت از تغییر کورکورانه نباشد که از طبیعت یا از نیروهای سرمایه‌داری ناشی شود، آن‌گاه بُعدی زیبنده می‌یابد. بدین‌طریق، تغییرْ زبان‌واره و بدل به متانویا می‌شود - و در نتیجه امکان صحبت‌کردن با این تغییر، انتقادکردن به آن و اظهار ناخشنودی‌کردن از آن پدید می‌آید.»

[Iman Rouhipour · Rating 5 out of 5]

این کتاب تحلیل و بررسی متفاوتی رو از تجربه‌ی سوسیالیسم اتحاد جماهیر شوروی تحت عنوان «زبان‌وارگی جامعه" ارائه می‌ده. " زبان‌وارگی جامعه یعنی سازمان‌دهی و شکل‌دهی جامعه با استفاده از زبان. "

از نظر بوریس گرویس قدرت حکومت شوروی و عامل وحدت‌بخش مردم و حزب کمونیست، زبان بود. به همین دلیله که حکومت شوروی نزدیک‌ترین تجربه‌ی بشریت به آرمان‌شهر افلاطون با پادشاهیِ فلسفه‌ست؛ با این تفاوت که در شوروی نه فقط حکومت با فلسفه‌ست، بلکه مردم هم همگی باید فیلسوف باشند
حتی برای پیش‌بردن کارهای روزمره‌.

حکومت شوروی دارای یک پارادوکس بزرگه چون اساساً ماتریالیسم‌ دیالکتیک یک تناقض بزرگه که البته این برای هر ایدئولوژی تام ویژگی لازمه چون در نهایت خود زندگی بشر متناقضه و دودوتا چهارتای بازار نیست. این حکومت قرار نیست پارادوکس رو به وسیله‌ی قواعد منطق صوری پنهان کنه بلکه مسائلِ پیشِ رو رو با همین پارادوکس حل می‌کنه، همون‌طوری که استالین در مواجهه با طیف‌های گوناگون نظرات مخالف، با همگی مخالفت و در نهایت امر نظر همه رو - هرچند مخالفِ هم - هم‌زمان اجرایی می‌کرد.

در نهایت همون‌طور که نقاش در یک لحظه تصمیم می‌گیره که دست از کشیدن بکشه و به پایان رسیدنِ اثر رو اعلام می‌کنه، اتحاد جماهیر شوروی هم به پایان می‌رسه. این پایان‌دادن نه مثل پایانِ پروژه‌های سرمایه‌داری به دلایل اقتصادی و بیولوژیک، بلکه یک پایانِ از بالا، خودخواسته و در نهایت دیالکتیکی‌ه برای بازگشتِ (اجتناب‌ناپذیر) کمونیسم و نه تجربه‌ی کمونیسمِ شوروی.

[Malcolm · Rating 4 out of 5]

I suspect that there is much about this argument that will jar with many readers, especially the case that under Stalin’s leadership the USSR was close to the full embodiment of communism: almost all of the key ructions in 20th century Marxist theory as well much of the history of the left has turned around this problem. Perhaps more unsettling, and the thing that we should focus on in this book is the more problematic conclusion that the development of capitalism in the USSR and PRC is the apotheosis of communism. Surely both of these points are counter-intuitive – for Marxists to argue that the murderous régime that was the Stalinist USSR was the embodiment of communism and for really existing socialism’s collapse into capitalism to be its highest achievement seem to be absurdities… which they are in a world governed by the rules and systems of formal logic. There is an awful lot in this short, complex, demanding, infuriating, invigorating essay and masterclass in dialectical reasoning (another mind bending piece from Verso’s Pocket Communism series) – and almost all of it denies modes of thought and answers demanded by formal logic.

Groys explicitly rejects the reasoning represented by formal logic in favour of a rigorously dialectical argument built on two key presuppositions. The first is that the rejection of formal logic as the commodification of ideas because “speech that hides its paradoxical structure becomes a commodity” (p11) and, second, that it is the role of the philosopher to allow “the full logical evidence of the hidden paradox to shine forth” (p14). So, this is not an empiricist historical, political or other form of analysis of really existing socialism, Stalinist or otherwise, but a philosophical exegesis on the centrality of paradox (the dialectic) in a mode of analysis that celebrates the paradox that may only be explored and represented in what Groys calls the linguistification of society.

The argument has several stages: paradox is essential and to be celebrated; paradox may only be explored in language; (here comes more Stalin) “language is neither superstructure nor base not yet a productive force” (p61), and crucially language cannot be owned by any class; state socialism/communism is a totalising form concerned about all of existence and as such can only be represented and understood in the linguistic order (he makes the sure-to-annoy-people argument that the issue with monarchies and fascism is that are not properly totalitarian, concerned only with the ruler or the nation rather than all of existence); as a linguistic order, the USSR was the fullest possible form of communism (he takes about a quarter of the book to make this point); the decision by the USSR (and the PRC) to destroy their state socialist forms to develop a capitalist system could only happen because they were successful (well, as successful as they could be given the state of the dialectic and struggle); and in taking decisions to develop a capitalist system these states developed their anti-thesis (this is a dialectical case) that allows for new struggles to build a communist order. Dialectics takes arguments in ways that the purely logical demand for ‘truth’, the mode of thought and reasoning we are used to, finds unsettling and often repulsive.

At the heart of Groys argument is a rejection of a singular measure of the ‘truth’ – the commercial, financial commodified measure that is money and economic success – in favour of continual recognition of and engagement with the negation that is the essential form of the dialectic. It is an argument for complexity, against the state form taken by really existing socialism – the USSR and PRC and others like them – in favour of a mode of thinking that allows us to envisage utopia, embrace the contradictions that make our human and worldly existence and engage in struggle with that negation to move forwards. It sounds, in this crude summary, almost mystical, in part because it is not an argument in favour of a linear 10 point plan to communism’s electoral success but a reminder of the messiness of any political and social and cultural struggle.

It is an infuriating argument – celebrating Stalin’s writings but not Stalinist (as I am sure some will condemn it as) but recognising how Stalin shaped the model of socialism/communism we have to work from; dialectical, so going off in unexpected directions; totalitarian, as in rejecting the partiality of the privatisation of knowledge and power and positionality – but in the end, despite all its shuffling between Plato, Socrates, Marx, Stalin and Hegel, it finishes up liberating us from the limitations of actually existing socialism. Whether it is right, now that’s a different story….. if this is Groys, where is there a not-Groys?

[Kaiserberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Contrary to formal logic, Groys explains how dialectical reason considers paradox to be inherent to life, as all aspects of a contradiction are part of the whole.

Starting from the differences between the sophist and the philosopher, and alluding to authors in art, history, politics and theology - the author credits the Soviet's "rule by language" with being able to expose the principal paradox in capitalist society, as opposed to bourgeois one-sided logically valid discourse which simply functioned as a "commodity in the market", until it no longer became "iconic" and relevant.
He then evokes the dimension of time (or "financing", which Groys considers to play an identical role in capitalist society) which can either make the paradox "irrelevant" or able to change - which in opposition to liberal notions of "infinite openness" Groys finds in "closing" or "limiting" the true source of novelty.

To a Western reader brought up on Cold War conceptions of the geopolitical struggle between US and Soviet-aligned camps as being one of "humanity contra the machine", echoed by both conservative and leftist critics of the Soviet experience, Groys' thesis might seem puzzling, to which he replies that such a Western criticism is merely “ a commodity on the media market. It is a standardized and sophistical mode of speech available for employment by any political strategy whatsoever. After all, where is the body not suppressed? Where are people not traumatized? Where is the subject who is not seized by contradictory desires? Where is the human not threatened by the machine? The answer is that this is the case everywhere. The sales potential of this critique is therefore potentially infinite.”

This work is undoubtedly much more extensive than this review and a pathway to delving further into Boris Groys' bibliography and that of many authors which he references throughout The Communist Postscript.

[Always Pouting · Rating 2 out of 5]

Someone gave me this as a gift, and so I read it because I can't just not read a book I have but this was pretty hard to get through. Why is all philosophy so verbose. Also I'm not sure I'm buying the argument that the Soviet Union just chose to move to capitalism because of dialectic materialism. Like the idea of linguistification was an interesting one but most of the assertions made just felt unjustified and I need an author to do more to back up the things they're saying than Groys does.

[G · Rating 4 out of 5]

La estética de este ensayo produce lecturas duales. Se lee con sesgo verificacionista primero, se toma distancia crítica después. O se lee para tener noticias primero, pero después entra la desconfianza que objeta la interpretación de esas mismas noticias. Se lee para disfrutar de un buen ensayo primero, se deriva después en una rumiación un poco amarga. Es posible que sea un efecto de la escritura dialéctica. También puede ser que se trate de una reacción crítica ante un libro postcomunista que parece salido de las entrañas del capitalismo, un producto del marketing. La tesis central afirma que el comunismo es una configuración del pensamiento y del estado en la que el lenguaje tiene total centralidad. El centro del capitalismo sería el dinero, no el lenguaje. Por eso dice que bajo el capitalismo hay un efecto de mutismo, un imperio del sofista que oculta la paradoja de sus discursos. El comunismo, por tener una raíz en el materialismo dialéctico explicita la paradoja, la deja proliferar en el lenguaje. La hace fundamento. Es filosófico. El capitalismo, en cambio, oculta la paradoja, la disimula. Ambos aspiran a la totalidad, que no es factible sin fundamentos paradójicos. Creo que va bien hasta ahí. Pero. Si está hablando de lógicas, entonces ¿qué pasa con los sistemas de referencia o universos discursivos? El mismo enunciado puede ser verdadero o falso según el sistema de referencia. Lo mismo aplica para la paradoja, puede darse o puede no existir. No hay, a la vez, un sistema o metasistema final, decisivo. Sólo hay convenciones y complejas articulaciones entre sistemas. Entonces, ¿paradoja como absoluto?
Lo mejor de este libro es la interpretación del giro capitalista de China y Rusia hacia fines del siglo XX y principios del XXI. Argumenta Groys que no es capitalismo, sino comunismo que se reinventa dialécticamente mediante experimentos capitalistas. Aunque Groys critique a Popper, ¿no suenan las tesis y argumentos de Groys a enunciados no refutables?, ¿no oculta bajo la dinámica de la dialéctica una colección evidente de hipótesis ad hoc?
En suma, creo que se trata de un libro magnífico por los temas interesantes que trata y por el extraordinario despliegue de recursos argumentales de Groys. Es un gimnasta retórico de la ex URSS. Las frases que escribe tienen cadencia. Hay breves y contundentes. Hay extensas y escurridizas. Lo que escribe hace pensar, no se puede pedir más.

[Karlo Mikhail · Rating 1 out of 5]

The argument is compelling and promising ("socialism as the linguistification of society"). But the way Groys set out to show this proved to be one of making frustratingly arbitrary and schematic claims (capitalism = rule of money, socialism = rule of language, etc. etc.) and misrepresentations (of dialectical materialism, for example) that has little or no bearing to the particular political and historical conjuncture where the Soviet experience found itself situated (the challenges the young socialist state and the mistakes it made, the way Stalin codified Marxism-Leninism, the persistence of capitalist relations in the socialist transition and its eventual full restoration), all "philosophical" sound and fury signifying nothing . . .

[Catie Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of interesting commentary on the history (and potential future) of communism, although a lot of the messages were lost in the long-winded philosophical pondering. I was especially interested in the analysis of communism as inherently contradictory, and not invalid because of its duality, but rather a reflection of the intertwined and convoluted nature of language and society which builds the foundation of communism.

[Alejandro Velasco · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too tired to write a fair review but I found most disappointing about this book is that Groys seems to set out his whole argument on the basis of an extremely weak logical distinction. He seems to reject non-contradiction principle in favor of "the philosophical logos of paradox" but it just feels like he sacrifices a lot of interesting insights just to stick to his account of philosophy as originating in paradox. The arguments he uses are not compelling because they rest on a strange interpretation of Plato and the conflict between philosophy and sophistry.

[Meg · Rating 4 out of 5]

It establishes a revival of the etymological meaning of dialectics as an originary domain in building the kingdom of philosophy, a rational state or a state where eternal paradox subsists in and every individual has an understanding of this condition of a logic beyond its formal validity, of the undermined and misconceived (or misapprehended from a lack of comprehension including the contradicting i.e. paradoxical - constituting an open logic) linguistification of society.

More than the original argument of Groys pedestaling the radical function of language cementing institutions of society, on the whole it could be seen as a defense of the Soviet Union, of its conception, Lenin's articles, and its eventual downfall reconstructing a fissure between the communist ideology and the historic material as forwarded by some anti-utopians, communists, socialist. However, by the very essence of dialectical materialism, Groys reinstigates a continual revisionist reading of communism, an integral part in the dialectics of any revolutionary movement.

"To abolish philosophy's claim to power is to abolish philosophy itself, leaving only the history of philosophy remaining. A common misconception must be dispelled here, however, one which also clouds our understanding of the Platonic state. To many, the call for the kingdom of philosophy sounds undemocratic, because philosophy is believed to be a specialized knowledge that most people do not possess. Thus it is assumed that the kingdom of philosophy means domination by an elite, a system of rule which most people are excluded. Who is a philosopher, however? A philosopher is anyone who speaks, so long as he or she is speaking (or remaining eloquently silent), for all speech refers to the whole, directly or indirectly, and is in consequence philosophically relevant." - 66.

[Levi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Disappointing. Has a few interesting points, especially the ones regarding totalitarianism, art, and others. But the most frustrating aspect is Groy's subordination of actual historical conditions to the concerns of language, working under the assumption of the 'linguistification of society,' the idea of communist authority as based on linguistic mastery, capability for paradox, and so on. Also has a lot of ridiculous assertions such as the Soviet Union reaching the point where class ceases to exist (perhaps following one of Stalin's more flawed assertions, that the classes are diminishing in Soviet Russia), and that philosophy and language has succeeded the concrete analysis of socio-economic conditions as matters of social and political relevance. This book is dangerous, because it promotes a lot of reactionary ideas under the guise of being 'hip' and revolutionary (heck, even Nazism is being revived as a fashionable today) because of its trendy glorification of Stalinist Russia and totalitarianism.

[Chet]

Note to self to reread and study chapter 3 best chapter in the book.

EDIT: I guess goodreads no longer allows multiple reviews, but I've now read this a second time. Chapter 3 is indeed the best chapter. The section about how Western critical discourse has stagnated to the point that everyone left and right criticizes everyone else for being like the USSR, lacking any other insight about society. We are forever stuck in a cold warrior time loop. As Donald Trump would say: "SAD!"

[Will · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bollocks soup

[‎ ‎ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reigniting!

[bianca · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 estrellas

tiene algunas lecturas forzadas pero escribe súper claro y propone ideas que están buenísimas para pensar el panorama actual

[Nakedfartbarfer]

Some compelling and mildly infuriating historical frameworks. This book makes the case, in passing, that the ultimate failure of the Soviet state is that the corrupted ruling party transitioned to capitalism neither out of political nor economic necessity. Now, the working classes of the world no longer have an entire superpower country at which to point in order to scare un-guillotined capitalists and un-deposed CEOs :/ The line of reasoning I just touched on is essentially a bug zapper that will cause blue checks on twitter and reply guys on Instagram who have never been tagged in a post to swarm.

This book focuses on theory, rather than the applications of so many governments past, because, well, it's not super hard to find state abuse in any country, communist or capitalist. While the revealed brutality of Joseph Stalin may have temporarily lost the fight for an egalitarian Earth and helped McCarthyism succeed in destroying the US movement that brought class concessions in the form of the New Deal, Stalin's barbarity pales in comparison to any equivalent time frame of bankable capitalist violence (though I'd call that a very poor yardstick).

[Jón Ólafsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Boris Groys's narrative where the paradox is actually what explains and justifies Stalinist power is quite gripping. It is so easy (maybe too easy) to think about the Soviet Union in these terms: As kingdom of language ruled by philosophers and where life's success depends on one's ability to become a special kind of philosopher.

[Jake · Rating 2 out of 5]

Found this very repetitive, didn't say much about philosophy of language or communism, very eclectic, bad critique of formal logic (I don't think Groys really understands it), not worth reading except for some occasional interesting passages.

[Christopher Ruth · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a weird one and a little creepy with its take on Stalinism, but still well worth reading.

[Alireza · Rating 2 out of 5]

کتاب بعد التحریر کمونیسم با عنوان انگلیسی the communist postscript در سال ۲۰۰۶ توسط بوریس گرویس، نویسنده‌ی آلمانی، نوشته شده و به عقیده من مناسب همان سالهاست که حتی پس از گذشت ۱۵ سال از فروپاشی اتحاد جماهیر سویالیستی شوروی، بحث در رابطه با دوران پساکمونیستی روسیه گرم بود. اما خواندن این اثر در سال ۲۰۲۱ توسط مخاطبان چندان دردی را دوا نمی‌کند، بالاخص که نظریات موجود در کتاب در مواردی عمده تعریفی متفاوت نسبت به سایر تعاریف متداول از اتحاد جماهیر سوسیالیستی شوروی را بیان می‌کند.

نتیجه‌گیری های گرویس در این کتاب شاید بر ضد نظریات صرفداران سوسیالیسم و کمونیسم باشد. مخصوصا در مواردی که توسعه سرمایه‌داری در اتحاد جماهیر سوسیالیستی شوروی و جمهوری خلق چین را برنامه‌ی دولت‌های کمونیستی این کشورها می‌داند و آن را به وسیله ماتریالیسم دیالکتیک بررسی می‌کند و سقو�� سوسیالیسم به سرمایه‌داری را بزرگترین دستاورد این دولت‌ها می‌داند و فراتر از آن اینکه رژیم قاتل اتحاد جماهیر سوسیالیستی شوروی استالین را تجسم آرمانی کمونیسم می‌بیند.

" تقریر مهم ماتریالیسم دیالکتیک، همانطور که همه دانشجویان شوروی باید می‌آموختند، حاکی از آن است که هستی آگاهی را تعیین می‌کند. بنابراین، اندیشیدن به طریق ماتریالیسم دیالکتیک یعنی اندیشیدن منسجم در چهارچوب تناقض و پارادوکس."
- از متن کتاب -

کتاب دارای جنبه‌های ضعیفی است. مخصوصا در مورد توتالیتاریسم و هنر. اما ضعیف‌ترین جنبه‌های کتاب، انطباق شرایط واقعی تاریخی با دغدغه��های زبان، کار با فرض " زبان‌وارگی جامعه "، ایده اقتدار کمونیستی بر اساس تسلط زبانی و توانایی استفاده از پارادوکس و توجیه آن به وسیله ماتریالیسم دیالکتیک است.

" بدون امکان توقف پراکسیس هنر، هیچ هنری ممکن نیست به وجود بیاید. پراکسیس هنر فقط در صورتی به معنی دقیق تشخیص داده می‌شود که پارادوکسی باشد. هنر برای آنکه هنر شناخته شود باید شبیه هنر و در عین حال شبیه غیرهنر باشد. (غیر به معنی other). با این ملاحظه معلوم می‌شود که چرا توقف پروژه کمونیسم نیز به معنای خیانت به کمونیسم نیست."
- از متن کتاب -

گرویس یک حکومت را زمانی به معنای واقعی کلمه کمونیستی می‌داند که در آن حکومت، زبان به جای سرمایه نقش بازی کند. زیرا هنگامی که مالکیت خصوصی ملغی شود، سرمایه عملا دچار انفعال می‌شود و زبان قابلیت آن را دارد که کاملا جای اقتصاد و پول و سرمایه را بگیرد زیرا به کل فعالیت‌ها و حوزه‌های حیات بشر دسترسی مستقیم دارد.

در کل این کتاب بیشتر به منزله‌ی دفاعیه‌ای از حکومت‌های کونیستی بالاخص اتحاد جماهیر سوسیالیستی شوروی می‌باشد تا ‌تجدیدنظری در شرح‌های متعارف تاریخ اتحاد جماهیر سوسیالیستی شوروی

[Taneli Viitahuhta · Rating 4 out of 5]

As with The Total Art of Stalinism, this is intriguing read and it has a point of view that is transfixing in its combination of familiar themes and introduction of new points. Central for me was the idea of dialectical materialism as paradoxical language, which thus is irrefutable. In this way Groys shows the Hegelian heritage of the Soviet diamat very clearly. At the same time as I read this, I was reading thesis on Goethe, that described his writing as a way to educate the reader, making of bourgeois reader - and this has clear connections with Hegelian logic, where "I is we, and we is I". Nationalism in Soviet system finds expression in the most paradoxical design, because this is a system that officially eschews from nationalism.

Clearly the experience of living with Stalinism, and especially with Stalinist language, is illuminative for Groys. His analysis of Capitalism as language is not as original, but it's not merely a sidekick to the story. Essentially Groys says that where competition rules, paradox has no place. I would agree, and though its a simple argument, it gets a long way to the way of problems in our communication, especially (social) media.

I would recommend this book to anyone interested in biopolitics and thanatopolitics with special reference to language (Russian formalism, Agamben, Foucault, Virno). Also to anyone interested in the thick paradoxes of Soviet thinking and philosophy, this is a must.

[Carlos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Groys defines communism as the project of subordinating the economy to politics in order to allow politics to act freely and sovereignty. He compares the experience of communism to Plato's republic. Communism means subordinating the entirety of politics to language. From this thesis, he critiques art and media in capitalist countries. Demands for diversity and different identities become commodities and are only mediated through money. Thus, revolutionaries must be like artists who can defend a position, and make decrees and commands. The cultural critique is poignant, then. Groys looks at writers like Huxley and Orwell to show how their texts can only defend an animal passion and the anti-communism starts by calling communists robots. This is seen in the invasion of the body snatchers. Groys seems utterly correct here since American protest culture like BLM and LGBT only serve to commodify identities. The media also promotes a sort of comforting anti-capitalism: Squid Games, Hunger Games, etc. The ideas of revolutionary identity and anti-conformism are thus sold, like Che Guevara on a t-shirt. For the communists, language must serve society as a whole, and language replaces money as the medium for politics and social cohesion. In sum, Groys does a great job analyzing the culture of communism as understood from the outside and the unique role of language in a communist revolution.

[Amirhossein Zarifian]

بوریس گرویس رو از کتاب قدرت هنر شناختم و اون کتاب و نگاه خیلی متفاوتی که نسبت به هنر/شوروی/کمونیسم داشت خیلی برای من جذاب بود. موقع خوندن متن نثرش هم خیلی کیف می‌کردم خصوصا توی نیمه ابتدایی اون کتاب که به‌جای بحث درباره هنرمند‌ها شروع می‌کنه درباره‌ی نهاد‌های هنری و موزه و تاثیرشون صحبت می‌کنه. بعد از اون کتاب هنر تام استالینی رو ازش خوندم و الآن هم این. این به نسبت متون قبلیش دشوار‌تر بود واسم و شاید هشتاد درصد تا نود درصدشو متوجه شدم یا فکر کردم که متوجه شدم :)) و حتما بعدا دوباره می‌خونم چون ادعاها و نظراتش خیلی متفاوت با چیزی هستند که هر جای دیگه‌ای می‌خونم خصوصا الآن که پایان‌نامه‌ام درباره‌ی هنر شوروی هست و مشخصا و متمرکز درباره‌ی این موضوع می‌خونم بازهم می‌تونم بگم دید‌گاه گرویس خیلی جالب و متفاوته واسه‌ی من. البته این کتاب پیش‌نیاز مختصری از فلسفه‌ی افلاطون و فیلسوف‌های فرانسوی قرن بیستم هم می‌خواد تقریبا و شادی مختصر تاریخی از شوروی ولی با این وجود باید روی پاراگراف‌ها دقیق شد و با وجود قطر کمش باید دقیق خوندش.
مسئله‌ی اصلی کتاب اینه کمونیسم امروز یعنی چی و پس از تجزیه‌ی اتحاد شوروی چگونه به زیستش ادامه می‌ده اگر زنده است؟ و گرویس در مقدمه یک تعریف خیلی قابل تامل ارائه می‌ده و می‌گه کمونیسم یعنی حاکمیت زبان. خوندن همین مقدمه با کمی توضیحات مجابم کرد این کتاب رو تا انتها بخونم و الآن مطمئنم بعدا دوباره برمی‌گردم سراغش.

[Jon Norimann · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Communist Postscript is a two hour read where Groys looks back from about year 2010 at some central features of communism esecially in the Soviet Union. Groys begins end ends looking at the use of language in the communist system, where he argues language is more systemic in communism than in capitalism. In between Grouys discusses paradoxes as an inherent part of communism.

Both discussions are reasonably original to me at least, and without going too far they lead to some rather unusual and intriguing conclusions. The Communist Postscript is a short, interesting read recommended for anyone with any interest in society in general.

[Ahmed · Rating 5 out of 5]

An extremely thought-provoking work on dialectical logic and its implications for language. One particularly interesting part was the exposition on how dialectical logic underlied both Lenin and Stalin's thinking and permeated Soviet society as a whole during that era, and how Stalin pondered and arrived at his conclusion to the question of the relation of language to the base and superstructure. The text can get a bit too abstract at times, especially when discussing the effulgence of 'evidence' through exposing the inherent paradoxes or contradictions of language, but this was a very gripping read overall and definitely worth checking out.

[Anton Shanaurin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Тот момент, когда, чтобы понять комментарий уважаемого Александра Шушпанова, нужно прочитать книгу. И я с комментарием согласен. Хотя первая глава и вызвала бурную реакцию с восклицаниями "Что за бред он несёт!", битием себя по лицу открытой ладонью и бурным смехом, благо всё это происходило в метро и никто не слышал.
В целом интересная точка зрения, хотя с ней и можно спорить, хотя я не нахожу в себе достаточных знаний, чтобы это делать. Может быть, позже, хотя вряд ли. Я в восторге.

[Ženija · Rating 4 out of 5]

Personīgi nesauktu šo eseju par "provokatīvu", jo tā likās pārāk loģiska, lai būtu šokējoša. Interesanti izlasīt citās idejās balstītu komunisma interpretāciju.

[Tato Changelia · Rating 5 out of 5]

"ხელოვნების ნაწარმი უნდა ჰგავდეს და ამავე დროს არ უნდა ჰგავდეს ხელოვნებას"

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intriguing book. After first reading the English translation, I've bought the original German edition. Hopefully that will get me a bit closer to the intentions of the author.

[Slow Reader · Rating 3 out of 5]

always want a bit more from Groys but it's hard to complain about a text this short and direct. and he knows his Soviet history