H. & A. & Marxism

[Fred Welfare]

3 texts come to mind: Jay Lifton's The Dialectical Imagination and Tom
Rockmore's Habermas on Historical Materialism, and On Max Horkheimer by S.
Benhabib et al., ed.

One argument is that H & A focus on superstructural or cultural factors as
the explanation for behavior and eschew the economic, in other words, they
collapse the superstructural determinants into the economic.  Some people
understand this as antipositivism but I do not think that the economic
argument or historical materialism is necessarily referred to in critiques
of positivism.  Even Habermas understands positivism not only as
instrumental action and hence without care, but also as decisions without
reflection.  Habermas' criticism of Marxism is found in Theory of
Communicative Action, Vol. 2, Thesis on Internal Colonization.  The
emphasis on money as determining behavior is never really thrown out, but
the additional effect of power as unaccounted for by Marx is probably the
critical difference between the Frankfurt School and Marxism.

> [Original Message]
> From: matthew piscioneri <mpiscioneri@hotmail.com>
> To: <frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu>
 > Date: 4/6/2003 7:49:39 AM
> Subject: H. & A. & Marxism

> Can anyone point me in the direction of a specific discussion (or comment 
> upon themselves) of how Marxism fares in H. & A.'s dialectic of 
> enlightenment. Most of the emphasis is on bourgeois philosophy and
fascism. 
> Are we to take marxism as being lumped in with these? In the Dialectic of 
> Enlightenment, in a passage that can surely be applied equally to the 
> developmental trajectory of Twentieth Century fascist,
democratic/capitalist 
> and Marxist ideological movements, Horkheimer and Adorno write:
> 
> "The history of the old religions and schools like that of the modern 
> parties and revolutions teaches us that the price for survival is
practical 
> involvement, the transformation of ideas into domination."(1995: 215)
> 
> It is precisely this recognition of the transformation of ideas into 
> domination which appears to justify the assertion that Horkheimer and 
> Adornos thesis on the dialectical inversion of enlightened reason applies 
> equally to the category of critical reason.
> 	Do Horkheimer and Adorno subtly draw the category of critical reason
into 
> their overarching critique of reason on the basis of the scientific 
> character of Marxs critique of political economy? By this I mean, 
> Horkheimer and Adorno consider the scientific basis of Marxs critical 
> social theory to be a type of positivism. In this way, Marxs critical 
> social theory and its scientific derivatives are as liable to their 
> critique of positivism as all other instantiations of postivist reason in 
> the natural, technical and physical sciences.
> 	This covert characterization of Marxs theory of value as a type of 
> positivism poses the question: Why was Horkheimer and Adornos criticism
of 
> Marxism so muted? Clearly, in the Dialectic of Enlightenment the
theoretical 
> target of their critique is positivist reason whilst the substantive
target 
> of their polemic is European fascism in the first place, and then, the 
> oppressive administered society manufactured and maintained under
advanced 
> capitalism by the culture industry. It would be expected that given 
> Horkheimer and Adornos Marxist heritage that their direct criticism of 
> Marxs work and Soviet Marxism would be muted in comparison to their 
> anti-fascist and anti-capitalist polemics. This interpretation is
supported 
> by Habermas when he writes:
> 
> "Critical Theory was initially developed in Horkheimers circle to think 
> through political disappointments at the absence of revolution in the
West, 
> the development of Stalinism in Soviet Russia, and the victory of fascism
in 
> Germany. It was supposed to explain mistaken Marxist prognoses, but
without 
> breaking with Marxist intentions."(1987: 116)
> 
> In other words, Horkheimer and Adorno did not want to turn their backs 
> altogether on the heritage of Marxist thought. Rather, it would appear,
that 
> even in the later stages of Critical Theory they aimed to hold onto at
the 
> very least the critical moment of Marxist critique whilst jettisoning the 
> positive or prescriptive moment of the critical reason embedded in
Marxist 
> critical social theory, which was most susceptible to dialectical
inversion 
> with the destructive consequences they witnessed in the 1930s and 1940s. 
> Significantly, and this is the third point I wish to make, as the two 
> passages  quoted above indicate, there is a more overt critique of
Marxism 
> in the second and later Introduction (1969) [#2] than that which is
evident 
> in the original Introduction (1944) [#1]. Perhaps the reasons are obvious.
> 
> One final passage from the Dialectic of Enlightenment. Concluding their 
> chapter Juliette or Enlightenment and Morality, they write of the Marquis 
> de Sade and Nietzsche:
> 
> "They [Sade and Nietzsche] were significantly unlike the logical
positivists 
> in taking science at its word. The fact that Sade and Nietzsche insist on 
> the ratio more decisively even than logical positivism, implicitly
liberates 
> from its hiding-place the utopia contained in the Kantian notion of
reason 
> as in every great philosophy: the utopia of a humanity which, itself no 
> longer distorted, has no further need to distort."(1995: 119)
> 
> Although not stated, Horkheimer and Adorno do not exclude Marxism from
the 
> category of great merciful philosophies:
> 
> "Inasmuch as the merciless doctrines proclaim the identity of domination
and 
> reason, they are more merciful than those of the moralistic lackeys of
the 
> bourgeoisie. Where do your greatest dangers lie? was the question 
> Nietzsche once posed himself, and answered thus: In compassion. With his 
> denial he redeemed the unshakable confidence in man that is constantly 
> betrayed by every form of assurance that seeks only to console. (1995:
119)
> 
> Any non-oppressive thoughts on the above?
> 
> mattP.
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.Go to  
> http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp



--- Fred Welfare
--- fwelfare@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.