So where does this leave us? Isn't it true that deconstruction of the last traces of class solidarity has confirmed that Derrida's Marxism is no more than a messianic gesture towards an unnameable future? This suspicion is the guiding thread of Jameson's essay on Spectres Marx, for it inscribes a certain reserve, a certain prohibition, with regard to Derrida's account of the general economy of capital. Let me summarize the argument. Postmodernism is conceived as the "cultural dominant" which emerges from globalization of the market, and deconstruction, despite its insights into the spectralizing powers of technological capitalism, remains complicit with the postmodernist desire to live in the pure immediacy of the present (Jameson in Sprinker, 1999: 59). Derrida's attempt to free Marxism from the deterministic elements of materialism ends up abandoning any sense of historical explanation; the play of spectres which he sets against the logic of revolutionary condensation becomes completely dissociated from the dialectics of subject and object, base and superstructure which determine the temporality of the mode of production. The ethical demand through which Derrida configures the 'spirit" of Marxism is therefore incapable of becoming properly political; for if there is no historical critique of the subject-object relations through which capital functions as a totality, then the other will always be without the chance of reception which is configured in the allegorical forms of class solidarity.