FS & Marxism
matthew piscioneri
mpiscioneri at hotmail.com
Sat, 03 May 2003 12:49:50 +0000
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