Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 07:42:09 -0500 (EST) From: eugeneh <eugeneh-AT-HUMANITIES1.COHUMS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> Subject: Re: Hegel/Marx Phil: You seem to assume that everything Marx wrote forms a seamless totality and moreover that such a totality necessarily takes a Hegelian form (from which one would then "extract" a Marxist content). The economic critique certainly does have a life outside Hegelian teleologism: I agree with Althusser that Marx's writings are not a seamless totality, and that one can (should) "weed out"the Hegelianism -- particularly the philosophy of history, which is NOT logically related to the economic analysis (as much as the old man may have wished it to be, especially early in his career). It may be that such "weeding out" indeed gives the critique a "new form" -- so be it (even though I'm not convinced it had a truly Hegelian form in the first place). One can (and should) accept the LTV as a critique of capitalism *without* imagining that e.g.cyclical crises will necessarily and automatically lead to the collapse of capitalism and the end of class society. The LTV as I understand it has nothing to do with a Hegelian totality -- unlike some other interesting Marxist problematics (such as base-superstructure) which do seem to retain a Hegelian flavor. Gene Phils wrote: Gene says that we should keep the political-economic kernel but throw away the Hegelian shell of Marxist theory. My organic metaphors don't fully state the problem with this view, which is that the political-economic content has no life independent of its Hegelian form. To extract the content, you have to restate it, and that restatement gives it a new form. I know that you have argued strenuously, Gene, that the LTV is a valuable basis for critique, but what kind of critique is this? Doesn't it reinstate the Hegelian totality which you claim to reject? Phil "Many Faces" Goldstein ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005