FS & Marxism

[matthew piscioneri]

James,

but Western Marxism is already part of the historical discourse of Critical 
Theory. So can the present discourse retrospectively decree its irrelevance? 
Maybe it's a good thing to dispense with history altogether. Partly my 
response to Habermas's essay on post-liberation Iraq is that we have to live 
in the moment of history. it's a scarey predicament. But then it has been a 
scarey couple of months. life is scarey. As a species we are so so scared of 
the present mainly because of its existential ramifications. This is mainly 
why past and future orientated delusions are so powerful, I suppose. 
Cultural/historical identity construction + Hire/purchase, mortgages and 
life in the hereafter loom large as pretty good delusions in the majority 
consciousness. damned majorities. Nietzsche &/or the mediocrity of 
democracy?

>I tend to agree with Ralph that the category "western Marxism" may be too 
>broad to be meaningful,
----------
Yes. I was hoping for further illumination along these lines. All this for 
me is to try and make certain/sense of Habermas's claims in the _TCA_ that 
H. & A's critique of instrumental reason had - in actual terms - interrupted 
the tradition of Critical theory

>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.

This is in part an empirical question asked of the list. I am hoping there 
are subscribers to this List who may be able to shed light on this aspect of 
Critical Theory's history.

MattP.


_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to  
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp