From: ReDionysus-AT-aol.com Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 01:56:48 EDT Subject: PDM I just bought PDM and skipped ahead to the point it seemed was in question. I'm not at all sure what to make of it, my first reaction is why would anyone want to return to the reflection of the thinking subject as opposed to the labour of the acting subject as the foundation, or to call Marx a philosopher of the subject, and then to go on to equate Marx with Hegel after negating exactly the places Marx surpassed Hegel. Habermas seems to begin from the presumption of a transcendental category of alienation and then seems dumbfounded, when Marx turns things on their head that change is possible historically, for example that alienation could overcome itself historically seems impossible because Habermas has retained this as a ideal category of alienation as opposed to a social/material reproduction of a system relations (of production). Am I just missing the point, which is what I worry about when anyone else seems to have missed the point so radically. This particular misrecognition of Marx would serve (and set up the problematic) of what I know to be Habermas' other work, the work that I've read (Structural Transforamtion of the Public Sphere) and my tendency to side with Habermas critics (Kluge &Negt, Fraser- although I don't side with her on much beside her crit of H). I guess I'm pretty much a Praxis Marxist, and get the odd feeling that anyone who isn't has just missed the point of Marx. [][][] Seamus
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005