File spoon-archives/marxism.archive/marxism_1994/marxism_8Aug.94, message 53


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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005