Re: 'critical theory' ?

[djones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (rakesh bhandari)]

>Rakesh: what do you see as the theoretical relationship between Postone
>and Backaus (and Negri, Cleever in "Open Marxism") and the Grossmann,
>Mattick, et. al. tradition?

As Justin eloquently suggested, scholars are only rarely stipended to study
or teach Marxian theory.

First, there is the question of the relationship between Grossmann and
Mattick, as well as Grossmann's other student--William J Blake.  The
*political* differences here have never been discussed; Grossmann and
Mattick's published correspondence break off before the Hitler-Stalin Pact.
And there is the question of course of the relation to Lenin.  Consider
here Mattick's theoretical anti-Leninism in both Anti-Bolshevik Communism
and the second half of Marxism: Last refuge of the Bourgeoisie.  Grossmann
was a Stalinist. It would be also interesting to know more about the
relationship between Grossmann and Pannekoek and Korsch, who is the subject
of an interesting chapter by Timparano in *On Materialism*.  So we can only
speak of a Grossmann/Mattick tradition by ignoring some important political
differences and, I imagine, differences in the theorization of the
crisis-tendencies of capital, as well. For example, what is the
significance of Mattick's criticism of Grossmann's use of the reproduction
schemes?

Second, there is the question of Grossmann's relationship to the Frankfurt
School of which he was an original member.   I am guesing  that Christopher
Caudwell, Ralph Fox and TA Jackson were  closer to Grossmann's
scientifically-grounded positions than Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse.
Ralph encouraged me to get Jonathan Ree's Proletarian Philosophers which
pays special attention to TA Jackson.  At any rate, there is the question
of the scientific socialist Grossmann's relation to critical theory, the
tradition in and through which Postone is working.

I would just like to comment that I am not yet fully convinced of Mattick's
compelling critique of Lenin (I also find Walter Daum very powerful--I
appreciate neil's recent post), and I find myself more drawn to whom I have
called the scientific socialists than to the critical theorists (though I
have found Stephen Eric Bronner's reconstruction and critique of this
tradition to be very compelling as well).  It is also true to say that no
one is stipended to explicate TA Jackson and Christopher Caudwell and David
Guest, etc--so I know of no comparison of this tradition to critical
theory.   Thinkers like these are hardly mentioned in standard histories.
Helena Sheehan in Marxism and the Philosophy of Science has discussed them
in depth, however.

 Now there is the topic of the relation between Postone and Negri and their
relation to Grossmann/Mattick. I would like to say that I read Negri before
any of these other thinkers, as well as the work of the Midnight Oil Group.
 So here I arrive at your question, and I have no answer.  I have been
stipended to write about ethnic and racial studies, and this question
requires very in-depth thought.  I have my preferences but these are
irrelevant. I can say this: the only one who has theoretically explained
the centrality of alienated and fragmented work to Marx's critical theory
is  Postone.  Actually he has an important predecessor not yet mentioned:
Raya Dunayevskaya in *Marxism and Freedom*.

rakesh





     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------