Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:51:22 +0100 Subject: Re: marx/ Cologne, 27 January 1999 Redlip-AT-aol.com schrieb: > re; comments on Marx's popularized thoery was an historical disaster. Hows > that? And what is the nature of this illusion in respect to philosophy and > politics? Maybe not an immediate precipitation, but the connections are hardly > illusory. And I'm not sure what Marx was trying to do is comparable here. ? > Anyway, thanks j.s. In many, many ways Marx and Heidegger are incomparable, of course. I was only comparing the will on the part of both thinkers to 'implement' their thinking in some sense in an historical context. I'm thinking of the deeper dimensions of Marx's later thinking, i.e. the _Grundrisse_, _Kritik der politischen Oekonomie_, the first and second editions of _Das Kapital_, Vol. 1 with the dialectical sections in the first chapter on the value-form, commodities and money. These texts were always regarded as difficult; cf. e.g. Marx's advice to Dr. Kugelmann's wife to skip the first chapters of Capital and start with the chapters on the "Working Day", "Co-operation, Division of Labour and Machinery." (30 Nov. 1867) If one reads the correspondence between Marx and Engels during the fifties and sixties one finds as a recurring theme the difficulty of the analysis of commodities and money. Marx says at one point "Even clever heads have not been able to understand it, so there must be something wrong with the presentation." In short, this part of the analysis of capitalism has always been beyond the understanding of most readers. So what's the point of it? On the other hand, the analysis of commodities and money is (one of?) the most subtle and profound analysis of the essence of capitalism existing. The question arises as to what relation these profounder insights into the nature of capital have with the political struggle against capitalism and for a socialist society. The more subtle thinkers in the new-born Soviet Union, such as Rubin, were ultimately done away with by Stalin. His brilliant essays on Marx's theory of value were first published, not in Russian, but in English translation by Quebec anarchists in 1973! What does it mean to overcome the fetishism of commodities historically? What does commodity fetishism say about human being, the way we _are_? With such questions one can easily be howled down in Marxist circles. The real-historical realizations of socialism we have seen in this century, with their overbearing, totalizing states, I would suggest, cannot be regarded as having anything to do with an overcoming or twisting free from essential capitalist relations. What would it mean to twist free of commodity fetishism? Can a political movement be a vehicle for such a change? Aren't the socialist experiments we have seen based on positing a total social subject (to wit, a kind of state)? Can reified social relations, as Marx thought them through, be loosened up historically within a thinking which is still fundamentally rooted in the metaphysics of subjectivity? I regard these questions as challenges to Marxist thinking (in the broadest sense) today. If Marx is still worth reading today, it is only because the depth of his thinking has not been exhausted by the historical realizations of Marxist theory which have occurred to date. And how thinking becomes an historical reality in a way of living together in a form of society may well be much more than a question of politics. Michael _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact-AT-t-online.de-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- VOX: (++49 221) 9520 333 -_ MAIL: Antwerpener Str. 1 _-_-_-_-_ _-_-_-_- FAX: (++49 221) 9520 334 -_-_-_-_ D-50672 Koeln, Germany_-_-_-_ --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005