FS & Marxism

[matthew piscioneri]

Ralph,

thanks for your reply. As a grad. student my research project requires me to 
take these questions seriously. Moreover I *enjoy* taking these questions 
seriously because I feel it takes me closer to the heart of the 
critical-emancipatory project. On the other hand I also rue the partisanship 
that has emerged in this project. But I think I see things simplistically.

We are generally in a post-enlightenment/ post emancipatory stage. Other 
than a consciousness revolution I don't foresee too much "progress" in the 
redistribution of wealth. Partly the question is what is the revolutionary 
subject of history with its share of the redistributed wealth?

Anyway comrade it is May Day.  A toast to Bakunin. As socialists let's 
celebrate the liberation of the working people of Iraq. Consumerism or 
religious dogma.

Best Regards,

MattP.






>From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain@igc.org>
>Reply-To: frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: FS & Marxism
>Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 22:33:03 -0400
>
>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
>


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to  
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp