Re: FS & Marxism

[Ralph Dumain <rdumain@xxxxxxx>]

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