Marxological Diss Crits.

If I were in cultural or media studies I could probably write a comparative study of diss tracks and scholarly criticism. I could compare the 90s east coast west coast beef with the 60s Marxist Humanist and Althusserian Marxists beef.  Luckily, I’m not in culture studies. But I’ll still post some of the outstanding instances of criticism I come across when I’m writing up. The first one was sent to me by a friend. It’s by Alfred Schmidt at his stone cold best. Brutally right on:

“Marx gave up using such terms as ‘estrangement’, ‘alienation’ and ‘return of man to himself’ as soon as he noticed that they had turned into ideological prattle in the mouths of petty-bourgeois authors, instead of a lever for the empirical study of the world and its transformation.” ( The Concept of Nature in Marx, p. 129.)



About HR

Deep in the adjunct crackhole.
This entry was posted in Marxologicaldisscrits. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Marxological Diss Crits.

  1. Shit gets even weirder when contemporary exponents of the “Humanist” wing, like the ISF Freiburg or Platypus or Principia Dialectica, dismiss anything coming from France since the mid-60s as “Heideggerian” and therefore “German”(!)

    So Foucault, Derrida, and Althusser are all exponents of “German Ideology”, whereas actual Heidegger students like Hannah Arendt, Herbert Marcuse, and Jean Amery aren’t!

    If these fools would read their John Milios or Michael Heinrich or Sonja Buckel, they’d realize that (post-)structuralism and form-analysis goes together like chocolate and peanut butter!

    • HR says:

      That is some weird shit. I don’t get the appeal of Arendt. Unless i’m missing something Marcuse seems as dated as “Jonathan Livingstone Seagull.”

      Certainly more interested in Milious’ attempt to merge Form analysis and Althusser which you can see as far back as Schmidt’s History and Structure.

      Have you read any of this japanese value theory. There’s a reference to somebody describing what appears to be the Japanese variant of Hegelian-Marxism as “the plague of Hegel” which i thought you would appreciate.

      This too:

      Kuruma: I don’t read many works of that nature, so I can’t really say whether this is the case or not, but as far as “methodology” understood in terms of this or that part of Capital corresponding with x or y in Hegel’s Logic, those who say that Capital cannot be understood without reading Hegel, those who brandish about Hegel while not giving much thought to what problem Marx is raising and solving at a particular point, or those who generate with outrageous misunderstandings from Hegelian thinking, well, such arguments remind me of a person who “goes out for wool and comes back shorn.”

    • HR says:

      And this one too:

      Marx himself, near the end of chapter two on the exchange process (as the final consideration of money prior to this third chapter that deals with the theory of money) writes: “The difficulty lies, not in comprehending that money is a commodity, but in discovering how, why, and through what a commodity is money” [2] Here the indication of these three difficulties clearly suggests Marx himself brilliantly overcome them, but no hint is provided as to where this was carried out. I have interpreted Marx as having answered the questions of how, why, and through what, respectively in the third and fourth sections of chapter one and in chapter two. Thus, according to this view, the three difficulties are listed in the order that they were overcome in Capital.

      Here I want to note, incidentally, that these three problems were not posed by Marx as a sort of logical schema, or in some sort of frivolous manner. Without solving each one of them an adequate understanding of money is not possible. Indeed, earlier political economy slipped into a variety of errors by failing to solve these problems. One must begin by posing the realistic problem to be solved, and then the issue becomes how the solution should be carried out, with the question being where and how the issue should be discussed – not the other way around. Therefore, it would be a waste of time, like “casting pearls before swine,” to present the solution to a person who has not even grasped the problem itself. Some imagine, however, that Marx is engaging in a sort of frivolous discussion here, while others focus their attention on this as the penetration of a Hegelian “logical process.” Considering this, I think the following, taken from Marx’s letter to Engels in which he expresses his thoughts on a book by Ferdinand Lasalle, entitled Heraclitus, the Dark Philosopher, should be fully relished:

      “Heraclitus, the Dark Philosopher, is quoted as saying in an attempt to elucidate the transformation of all things into their opposite: ‘Thus gold changeth into all things, and all things change into gold.’ Here, Lassalle says, gold means money (c’est juste) and money is value. Thus the Ideal, Universality, the One (value), and things, the Real, Particularity, the Many. He makes use of this surprising insight to give, in a lengthy note, an earnest of this discoveries in the science of political economy. Every other word a howler, but set forth with remarkable pretentiousness. It is plain to me from this one note that, in his second grand opus, the fellow intends to expound political economy in the manner of Hegel. He will discover to his cost that it is one thing for a critique to take a science to the point at which it admits of a dialectical presentation, and quite another to apply an abstract, ready-made system of logic to vague presentiments of just such a system

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s