FS & Marxism

Claus Hansen clausdh at tdcspace.dk
Sat, 03 May 2003 16:16:29 +0200


<html>
Hello Matt and others,<br><br>
now I am certainly no expert on this issue but I might as well give me
behalf to this<br>
quite interesting question. I would tend to agree with both Ralph and
James that the<br>
label Western Marxism is quite suspect. In any case I don't believe
Habermas (and<br>
certainly not Adorno &amp; Horkheimer) were ever trying to fit in a
tradition that included<br>
figures like Gramsci, Sartre, Althusser and others. However, Georg
Lukacs, Ernst<br>
Bloch and Karl Korsch have all been influential at least for A &amp;
H.<br><br>
A wild guess on articles etc to read about this would be the
following:<br><br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><i>'The
Topography of Western Marxism'</i> in Martin Jay, <b>Marxism and
Totality<br>
</b><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>in
this introduction he refers to the following books/articles that deal
with<br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>the term
Western Marxism: <br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><b>'Considerations
on Western Marxism' </b>by Perry Anderson<br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>reviews
of this book in <i>Socialist Revolution</i> 7, 5 (1977) by J. Herf,<br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><i>Monthly
Review 30, 4 </i>(1978) by R. D. Wolff, <i>Telos 30 (1976-77)<br>
</i><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&n=
bsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>by
P. Piccone<br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><i>'The
Frankfurt School Revisited: A Critique of Martin Jay's The
Dialectical<br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>Imagination'<=
/i>&nbsp;
by D. Kellner in New German Critique, no. 4 (1973). Which <br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>as far as
I can see gives an elaboration of the early critical theorists at<br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>the
Institute (Felix Weil, Pollock, Horkheimer) commitment to
marxism.<br><br>
Now I have only very hastily flicked these articles through so I cannot
guarentee<br>
anything at all but as always please keep posting if anyone know anything
- it is<br>
such a good way to learn some more.<br><br>
Best regards,<br><br>
Claus<br><br>
<br>
At 12:49 03-05-03 +0000, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>James,<br><br>
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 &amp;/or the mediocrity of democracy?<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>I tend to agree with Ralph that th=
e
category &quot;western Marxism&quot; may be too broad to be
meaningful,</blockquote>----------<br>
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. &amp; A's critique of instrumental reason had - in actual terms -
interrupted the tradition of Critical theory<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>but I don't think your particular
questions RE: H and A's Marxism vs. Habermas' Marxism are at all
irrelevant.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
MattP.<br><br>
<br>
_________________________________________________________________<br>
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to&nbsp; <br>
<a href=3D"http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp"=
 eudora=3D"autourl">http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp</=
a><br>
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<b>_________________________________________________________________________=
___<br>
</b>&quot;Hos mange mennesker er det allerede en uforskammethed, n=E5r de
siger 'jeg'&quot; (T.W. Adorno)</html>