FS & Marxism

[James Rovira]

I tend to agree with Ralph that the category "western Marxism" may be 
too broad to be meaningful, but I don't think your particular questions 
RE: H and A's Marxism vs. Habermas' Marxism are at all irrelevant.  Many 
writers I've seen contrast H and A's Marxism with the Marxism of the 
Internationals, or with Marxism as defined by other specific figures. 
 It seems like specifically identifing the configuration of Marxism that 
H and A were in dialog with is the route to take.

Jim  

matthew piscioneri wrote:

> 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
>
>