FS & Marxism

[Ralph Dumain]

Perhaps my contribution won't be welcome.  The very first question to 
answer needs to be: who invented "Western Marxism" as a concept, and 
when?  It is, after all, a categorial construct named after the fact, 
grouping people together many of whom never new they belonged 
together.  Next question: did any of the Frankfurters of either the first 
or second generation recognize or even know of the concept of "Western 
Marxism"?  I think it is naive to take "tradition"-s at face value. This 
would be a very provincial thing to do.  Not that Habermas was not working 
out of one and perhaps eventually several traditions, but some traditions 
(i.e. the school of thought you were reared in) are more real for their 
participants than others.  Discussing categories of categories of 
categories once again smacks of graduate student syndrome to me.  "Western 
Marxism" as a construct seems to mean little more than "unorthodox" 
Marxism, usually considered sexier than "orthodox" marxism, the latter 
ultimately meaning something like Stalinism, the Communist Parties, Maoism, 
or even heresies like Trotskyism that compete for orthodoxy.  The exception 
comes when Communists do something different from their brethren that we 
like--Gramsci, for example.  What about Della 
Volpe?  Colletti?  Personally, I'm dubious about the category "western 
Marxism".  It is useful for aggregating works of common interest, but 
should not be taken too seriously as an entity.  But then I'm probably 
talking to myself here.

At 12:57 AM 5/1/2003 +0000, matthew piscioneri wrote:
>Dear List,
>
>I am trying to sort out what was C.T's self-understanding of its relation 
>to Western Marxism. In particular, I am looking for perspectives on 
>Habermas's reconstruction of C.T & Marxism both in the 1960s and in the 1970s.
>
>For eg., in _KHI_ is Habermas intention to reconstruct BOTH C.T and/or 
>Western Marxism (is historical materialism a more accurate term?)? Does 
>Habermas see his programme to move beyond the aporia of H. & A's critique 
>of instrumental reason to be applicable to western marxism? in other 
>words, does JH see this more general tradition to have been interrupted by 
>their critique of instrumental reason also (the dialectical inversion of 
>critical reason)? I guess what I am struggling with is understanding 
>whether JH *primarily* is working out of the tradition of C.T, or within 
>the tradition of western marxism. If so both, how are we to understand 
>late-C.T's relationship to western marxism.
>
>Any contributions VERY welcome.
>
>Regards,
>
>MattP