DOCSLIB.ORG

Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism A CRITICAL STUDY I< E VI N ANDERS 0 N Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism A CRITICAL STUDY KevinAnderson University of Illinois Press Urbana and Chicago We wish to thank the Raya Dunayevskaya Memorial Fund, 59 East Van Buren, Chicago, IL 60605, for help in making the paperback edition of this book possible. � 1995 by the Board ofTrustees of the University of Illinois Manufactured in the United States of America 12 3 45CP54321 This bookprintell iS on acidfne paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Anderson, Kevin, 1948- Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism : a critical stu�y I Kevin Anderson. p. em. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 0-252-02167-3 (cloth: alk. paper).- ISBN 0-252-06503-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Lenin, Vladimir Il'ich, 1870-1924. 2. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 1770-1831. 3. Communism. 4. Philosophy, Marxist I. Title. HX313.8.L46A54 1995 335.43-dc20 94-45414 CIP Contents Acknowledgments vn Introduction ix A Note on Sources and Abbreviations xix Part 1: Lenin on Hegel and Dialectics 1. The Crisis of World Marxism in 1914 and Lenin's Plunge into Hegel 3 2. Lenin on Hegel'11 Concepts of Being and Essence 28 3. The Subjective Logic: The Core of Lenin's 1914 Hegel Studies 57 4. Lenin's Discussions of the Dialectic, 1915-23: An Ambivalent, Secretive Hegelianism 98 Part 2: Lenin on the Dialectics ofRevolution, 1914-23 5. Imperialism and New Forms of Subjectivity: National Liberation Movements 123 6. State and Revolution: Subjectivity, Grassroots Democracy, and the Critique ofBureaucracy 148 Part 3: Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism 7. From the 1920s to 1953: Lukacs, Lefebvre, and the Johnson-Forest Tendency 173 8. From 1954 to Today: Lefebvre, Colletti, Althusser, and Dunayevskaya 210 Conclusion: Lenin's Paradoxical Legacy 251 vi I Contents Notes 257 Selected Bibliography 297 Index 303 Acknowledgments In researching and writing this book I have accrued debts to many individuals and institutions. George Fischer, Michael E. Brown, Teru Kanazawa, and especially Raya Dunayevskaya each commented extensively on it during the years 1979-83, when I completed the first version, a dissertation at the City University of New York (CUNY) graduate school. Dunayevskaya also occasionally discussed it with me in Chicago until her death in 1987. It was she who originally proposed the topic to me and who encouraged me to work on it further. During its thesis stage, David Beasley of the New York Public Library helped me greatly in locating source material. At the same time I received, with the assis­ tance of George Fischer, a CUNY/Board of Higher Education research grant for an uninterrupted year of dissertation work, and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) generously provided me with a summer scholarship to study German in West Berlin. After 1983, as I worked further on the book, librarians at the several universities where I taught-at Indiana University Northwest, at North Central College, and especially Robert Ridinger at Northern Illinois University-spared no effortto make a large number of French, German, Italian, and Japanese materials available to me through interlibrary loan. In the 1990s, after I had reworked the entire manuscript, adding mate­ rial on Hegel and on German, French, and Italian Marxist traditions, as well as new source material on Lenin, a number of people read and commented on it once again. Robert John Ackermann,JanetAfu.ry, Peter Hudis, and Douglas Kellner read the manuscript in its entirety. Large portions of the manuscript involving several chapterswere read by Bud Burkhard, Nigel Gibson, Martin Jay, Patricia AltenberndJohnson, David .Joravsky, Andrew Kliman, Pierre Lantz, Heinz Osterle, Albert Resis, Tom Rockmore, and Lou Turner. Finally, Paul Buhle, Olga Domanski, Ted McGlone, Robert Service, Jim Thomas, and Alan Wald each read smaller vi I Contents Notes 257 SelectedBibliogrnphy 297 Index 303 Acknowledgments In researching and writing this book I have accrued debts to many individuals and institutions. George Fischer, Michael E. Brown, Teru Kanazawa, and especially Raya Dunayevskaya each commented extensively on it during the years 1979-83, when I completed the first version, a dissertation at the City University of New York (CUNY) graduate school. Dunayevskaya also occasionally discussed it with me in Chicago until her death in 1987. It was she who originally proposed the topic to me and who encouraged me to work on it further. During its thesis stage, David Beasley of the New York Public Library helped me greatly in locating source material. At the same time I received, with the assis­ tance of George Fischer, a CUNY /Board of Higher Education research grant for an uninterrupted year of dissertation work, and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) generously provided me with a summer scholarship to study Geiman in West Berlin. After 1983, as I worked further on the book, librarians at the several universities where I taught-at Indiana University Northwest, at North Central College, and especially Robert Ridinger at Northern Illinois University-spared no effortto make a large number of French, German, Italian, and Japanese materials available to me through interlibrary loan. In the 1990s, after I had reworked the entire manuscript, adding mate­ rial on Hegel and on German, French, and Italian Marxist traditions, as well as new source material on Lenin, a number of people read and commented on it once again. RobertJohn Ackermann,Janet Afury, Peter Hudis, and Douglas Kellner read the manuscript in its entirety. Large portions of the manuscript involving several chapters were read by Bud Burkhard, Nigel Gibson, MartinJay, Patricia Altenbernd Johnson, David Joravsky, Andrew Kliman, Pierre Lantz, Heinz Osterle, Albert Resis, Tom Rockmore, and Lou Turner. Finally, Paul Buhle, Olga Domanski, Ted McGlone, Robert SeiVice, Jim Thomas, and Alan Wald each read smaller viii I Acknowledgments parts. I am most grateful to each of these readers for their comments and criticisms. I would also like to thank my editor at the University of Illinois Press, Richard Martin, who has been most helpful and support­ ive during the review process. An earlier version of chapter 7 appeared in 1992 as an article in Studi.es in Saviet Thought (44:79-129; © 1992 Kluwer Academic Publishers; printed in the Netherlands), and I would like to thank Kluwer Aca­ demic Publishers for allowing this material to be reprinted. Introduction This book paints a picture of Lenin different from the one found in most discussions of Marxism. Looking closely at his 1914-15 Hegel Notebooks, I will argue that Lenin's post-1914 work, especially oq the dialectic, places him closer to key Hegelian or "Western" Marxists such as Georg Lukacs and the members of the Frankfurt School than to orthodox Marxists, including official Soviet Marxist-Leninists. I am by no means the first to arguethis point, but I believe that this study is the first book-length treatmentof Lenin to place such considerations at its center. In 1980 the prominent Marxist sociologist Alvin Gouldner pointed to two traditions within Marxist theory, which he termed critical and scientific Marxism. Gouldnerplaced a number of Hegelian, existentialist, and humanistic Marxists in the former category, while he located a group of structuralist Marxists in the latter. Far from placing Lenin among the scientific Marxists, as many lesser scholars would have done, Gouldner wrote: "before Lukacs and Korsch, it was Lenin who launched the movement toward a critical Marxism. (Launched but did not pur­ sue it)"l Gouldner was presumably referring both to Lenin's 1914-15 Hegel Notebooks andto his subsequent failure publiclyto discuss them very much, a problem that the Hegelian Marxist Raya Dunayevskaya has termed Lenin's "philosophic ambivalence."2 During the 1970s and early 1980s in the United States, and earlier in Europe, heated debates over the nature of Marxist theory raged among the various Marxist traditions that Gouldner had analyzed as constituting these two Marxisms, especially in journals such as Telos, New Left Review, and Theory and Society. By the 1990s the intellectual ground had shifted, and Marxism itself was increasingly being called into question even by radical intellectuals, not least because of the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and x I Introduction Russia. Marxism was deemed a fuilure at a political level because it had helped to bring about totalitarianism and economic collapse. Attacks were leveled not only at the authoritarian and vanguardist side of Lenin's thought but also at his more "utopian" writings on the state and revolution, on direct democracy by soviets of workers, peasants, and soldiers. In 1991 the leftist theorist Martin Jay, best known for his work on the Frankfurt School, summed up some of these critiques of Marx­ ism in a mordant essay entitled "No Power to the Soviets." Although he fuiled to address the side of Lenin's thought that advocates soviets, or workers' councils,Jay's essay sums up well some of the 1990s-era objec­ tions to radical revolution, even if it were from "below" through direct democracy: For Leninism was not the only socialist casualty of the recent events; no less called into question, at least implicitly, was another model of emancipatory organization, and one which had occupied a central role in the socialist imaginary for more than a century.This alternative model was that of the workers council or soviet, which has often functioned as the utopian counterpoint to the "realistic" Leninist stress on the party. Preserved in name only in the title of the Soviet Union, it remained nonetheless a vital rallying point for libertarian socialist critic\ of authoritarian, bureaucratic, statist communism. Rooted in the syndical­ ism of the 19th century, councils became historically important at various moments in the revolutions of our own-1905 and 1917 in Russia, 1918 to 1920 in Germany, Austria and Italy, and 1956 in Hungary...
Recommended publications
  • Reichman on Linden, 'Western Marxism and the Soviet Union: a Survey of Critial Theories and Debates Since 1917'

    Reichman on Linden, 'Western Marxism and the Soviet Union: a Survey of Critial Theories and Debates Since 1917'

    H-Russia Reichman on Linden, 'Western Marxism and the Soviet Union: A Survey of Critial Theories and Debates since 1917' Review published on Monday, November 10, 2008 Marcel van der Linden. Western Marxism and the Soviet Union: A Survey of Critial Theories and Debates since 1917. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ix + 380 pp. $139.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-90-04-15875-7. Reviewed by Henry Reichman Published on H-Russia (November, 2008) Commissioned by Nellie H. Ohr A Fading Tradition This is a revised, corrected, updated, and expanded version of a work that began as a PhD dissertation and was originally published in Dutch in 1989 and again in German in 1992. Marcel van der Linden, a labor historian at Amsterdam University and executive editor of theInternational Review of Social History, summarizes an extraordinarily broad range of Western Marxist thinkers in an effort to understand how Marxists who were politically independent of the Soviet Union "theoretically interpreted developments in the Soviet Union" (p. 4). Noting that "in the history of ideas Marxist theories have not received the attention they deserve" (p. 2) and that "the 'Russian Question' was an absolutely central problem for Marxism in the twentieth century" (p. 1), van der Linden seeks simultaneously to shed light on both the Soviet experience and "the historical development of Marxist thought" (p. 1), succeeding perhaps more in the latter goal than the former. The book opens with a brief introduction, which postulates that the development of Western Marxist thinking about the Soviet Union was shaped by three "contextual clusters:" 1) "The general theory of the forms of society (modes of production) and their succession" adopted by differing Marxist thinkers; 2) the changing "perception of stability and dynamism of Western capitalism"; and 3) the various ways "in which the stability and dynamism of Soviet society was perceived" (pp.
  • Uncovering Marx's Yet Unpublished Writings

    Uncovering Marx's Yet Unpublished Writings

    Uncovering Marx's Yet Unpublished Writings Kevin B. Anderson Published in Critique (Glasgow), No. 30-31 (1998), pp. 179-187 [reprinted in Marx, edited by Scott Meikle (Ashgate 2002); translated into Turkish in Insancil, Istanbul, May 1997] When Lawrence Krader published his historic transcription of Marx's Ethnological Notebooks 25 years ago, a new window was opened into Marx's thought. What in published form had become 250 pages of notes by Marx on Lewis Henry Morgan and other anthropologists which he had compiled in his last years, 1880-81, showed us as never before a Marx concerned as much with gender relations and with non-Western societies such as India, pre-Colombian Mexico, and the Australian aborigines, as well as ancient Ireland, as he was with the emancipation of the industrial proletariat. As will be shown below, to this day there are a significant number of writings by Marx on these and other issues which have never been published in any language. Why this is still the case in 1997, 114 years after Marx's death, is the subject of this essay, in which I will also take up plans now in progress in Europe to publish many of these writings for the first time. The problem really begins with Engels and continues today. While Engels labored long and hard to edit and publish what he considered to be a definitive edition of Vol. I of Capital in 1890, and brought out Vols. II and III of that work in 1885 and 1894 by carefully editing and arranging Marx's draft manuscripts, Engels did not plan or even propose the publication of the whole of Marx's writings.
  • The Radical Infatuation with Western Marxism Or La Belle Dame Sans Merci?

    The Radical Infatuation with Western Marxism Or La Belle Dame Sans Merci?

    Canadian Journal of Social and Political Theory/Revue canadienne de theorie politique et sociale , Vol. 6, No. 3 (Fall/Automne, 1982) . THE RADICAL INFATUATION WITH WESTERN MARXISM OR LA BELLE DAME SANS MERCI? Rosaire Langlois Russell Jacoby, Dialectic of Defeat: Contours of Western Marxism, Cambridge University Press, 1981, p. X+202 One of the more striking characteristics of the re-orientation of social and political theory during the past fifteen years or so, has been the resurgence of interest in various types of Marxist theory.' Old theorists were rehabilitated- among them Lukacs and Gramsci-and new thinkers were embraced-notably, Althusser and Habermas . The old faith took on new trappings . This second coming of Marxism bore little resemblance to the old-fashioned version. The very foundations of classical Marxism-for example, the stress on the role of the economy and technology on the organization of social life-were cast aside with a corresponding exaltation of the role of the autonomous human subject . Innocent bystanders could be forgiven for wondering whether the uniqueness and perhaps even the coherence of Marxism had not been compromised altogether . The latest work of Russell Jacoby, while not intended as an encyclopaedic survey of all the theorists and issues within the "Western Marxist" tradition, attempts a partial stocktaking and affords an opportunity for a tentative assessment of the approach .z Jacoby writes as both scholar and passionate partisan. Not all, however, will share his continued enthusiasm. The Dialectic ofDefeat is, at one level, a work of intellectual history. As such, it is a quite interesting and significant effort .
  • Clases Sociales Y Estado En El Pensamiento Marxista: Cuestiones De Método

    Clases Sociales Y Estado En El Pensamiento Marxista: Cuestiones De Método

    Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Programa de Posgrado en Estudios Latinoamericanos Taller de investigación: clases sociales y Estado en el pensamiento marxista: cuestiones de método Profesor: Matari Pierre Email: [email protected] Semestre 2021-1 (septiembre-diciembre 2020) 15 sesiones de 4 horas (jueves 16 a 20 horas) Objetivo general El análisis de las clases sociales y de las formas de Estado estructura el pensamiento social y político marxista. Sin embargo, estos conceptos no fueron claramente definidos ni por Marx ni por Engels. Los comentarios posteriores se apoyan en algún aspecto o aforismo de sus obras. De suerte que ambas nociones entrañan problemas de teoría y de método que tensan el marxismo desde sus orígenes: el determinismo económico del proceso histórico; la antropología subyacente a las definiciones de las clases y de sus relaciones recíprocas; la naturaleza específica de lo político y de las formas de Estado. El taller propone introducir y discutir estas tres cuestiones a partir de una selección de textos de representantes, comentaristas y críticos del pensamiento social y político marxista del siglo XX. El programa está organizado en dos grandes partes divididas en tres secciones cada una. Introducción (dos sesiones) Lecturas obligatorias: Eric J. Hobsbawm, “La contribución de Karl Marx a la historiografía”. Shlomo Avineri, El pensamiento social y político de Marx (capítulo I “Reconsideración de la filosofía política de Hegel). Jean-Paul Sartre, Cuestiones de método (primera parte “Marxismo y existencialismo”). Lecturas complementarias: Raymond Aron, Las etapas del pensamiento sociológico (“los equívocos de la sociología 1 marxista” extracto del capítulo 3). Tom Bottomore y Maximilien Rubel, “La sociología y la filosofía social de Marx”.
  • Wittgenstein, Marx, and Language Criticism the Philosophies of Self-Conciousness

    Wittgenstein, Marx, and Language Criticism the Philosophies of Self-Conciousness

    Wittgenstein, Marx, and Language Criticism The Philosophies of Self-Conciousness NORBERTO ABREU E SILVA NETO Preliminarily I must say this paper results from researches belonging to a larger project of study on Karl Marx’s philosophy I am carrying out, and that the bringing of Wittgenstein and Marx together here presented does not have the aim of trying to prove or to suggest Marx exerted upon Wittgenstein’s philosophy some kind of indirect or second hand influence. My idea is that since they developed their work in dialogue with the same philosophical traditions this fact would make it possible to find out ways of establishing continuity between their philosophies. So, in this work I will bring out some connections I am working on with the aim of trying to read Wittgenstein as a materialist philosopher. 1. The uses of philosophy During twenty years (1839-1859) Marx dedicated himself to systematic philosophical research and to meditation. In the Preface to his Criticism of Political Economy,1 he exposes an assessment he made of his intellectual development during this period. He declares that through his studies and the essays and other works written during these years he did not have the aim of outlining a new system of thought or a new philosophy, but that he simply was only searching for the conducting thread of his studies; and that the works he wrote were not for printing, but for his personal edification. And, particularly, about the writing of The German Ideology, he reports that, when he and Engels decided to write this book, they aimed at developing their common conception in opposition to the ideological views of German 1 Marx 1963, 271, 274.
  • New Marx Publications: a MEGA Update the Ongoing Marx-Engels

    New Marx Publications: a MEGA Update the Ongoing Marx-Engels

    New Marx Publications: A MEGA Update KEVIN B. ANDERSON The ongoing Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe (Complete Writings, or MEGA) certainly shows that the serious scholarly publication of Marx’s work is continuing. Perhaps more importantly, it also suggests that there may still be some significant parts of Marx’s work that have yet to see the light of day. Some indications of this came in December 1998, when the first post-Stalinist volume of the MEGA came off the press at Akademie Verlag in Berlin. The last volume had appeared in 1992, just after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Anumber of leading newspapers and magazines, espe- cially German ones, reported the December 1998 publication of the new MEGA vol- ume. Articles appeared in German in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , the Frankfurter Rundschau, Neue Zürcher Zeitung and Die Zeit. Outside Germany, Le Soir (Belgium), Pravda (Russia), and the Asahi Shimbun (Japan) also covered the story, but it unfortu- nately received little attention in the English-speaking world. Since then, two more volumes have appeared, both in 1999, with two more scheduled to appear soon. MEGA Volume IV/3, the one published in December 1998, offers new background on Marx’s development during the period between the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844) and the German Ideology (1846) as well as the Communist Manifesto (1848). Volume IV/3 contains Marx’s 400-page 1844–7 notebooks on leading political economists of the time such as Louis Say, Jean Charles Leonard Sismondi, Charles Babbage, Andrew Ure, and Nassau Senior. None of these texts has been previously published in any language.
  • Theory in Weberian Marxism: Patterns of Critical Social

    Theory in Weberian Marxism: Patterns of Critical Social

    THEORY IN WEBERIAN MARXISM: PATTERNS OF CRITICAL SOCIAL THEORY IN LUKÁCS AND HABERMAS* Harry F. Dahms 1 ABSTRACT For Weberian Marxists, the social theories of Max Weber and Karl Marx are complementary contributions to the analysis of modern capitalist society. Combining Weber's theory of rationalization with Marx's critique of commodity fetishism to develop his own critique of reification, Georg Lukács contended that the combination of Marx's and Weber's social theories is essential to envisioning socially transformative modes of praxis in advanced capitalist society. By comparing Lukács's theory of reification with Habermas's theory of communicative action as two theories in the tradition of Weberian Marxism, I show how the prevailing mode of "doing theory" has shifted from Marx's critique of economic determinism to Weber s idea of the inner logic of social value spheres. Today, Weberian Marxism can make an important contribution to theoretical sociology by reconstituting itself as a framework for critically examining prevailing societal definitions of the rationalization imperatives specific to purposive-rational social value spheres (the economy, the administrative state, etc.). In a second step, Weberian Marxists would explore how these value spheres relate to each other and to value spheres that are open to the type of communicative rationalization characteristic of the lifeworld level of social organization. INTRODUCTION Since the early 1920s, the function of theory in Western Marxism has undergone a major transformation.1 So far manifesting itself as an increased willingness and ability in 2 modernist critical social theories to confront societal complexity, this change points toward a qualitatively different way of relating diverse social-theoretical projects to each other.
  • Marx and Germany

    Marx and Germany

    Communism and Nationalism This page intentionally left blank Communism and Nationalism Karl Marx Versus Friedrich List Roman Szporluk New York Oxford OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1988 Oxford University Press Oxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland and associated companies in Beirut Berlin Ibadan Nicosia Copyright © 1988 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., 200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Szporluk, Roman. Communism and nationalism. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Nationalism and socialism. 2. Marx, Karl, 1818-1883—-Views on nationalism. 3. List, Friedrich, 1789-1846—Views on nationalism. I. Title. HX550.N3S95 1988 320.5'32 87-10993 ISBN 0-19-505102-5 135798642 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper For Mary Ann, Ben, Larissa, and Michael This page intentionally left blank Preface In 1977 I began to teach a course at the University of Michigan called "Socialism and Nationalism." The course was based on the idea that in the historical epoch inaugurated by the French and Industrial revolutions, socialism and nationalism addressed very similar—if not identical—ques- tions, but gave different answers to them, provided competing programs for their realization, and in general, offered alternative visions of the world.
  • A Dissertation Entitled Yoshimoto Taka'aki's Karl Marx

    A Dissertation Entitled Yoshimoto Taka'aki's Karl Marx

    A Dissertation Entitled Yoshimoto Taka’aki’s Karl Marx: Translation and Commentary By Manuel Yang Submitted as partial fulfillment for the requirements for The Doctor of Philosophy in History ________________________ Adviser: Dr. Peter Linebaugh ________________________ Dr. Alfred Cave ________________________ Dr. Harry Cleaver ________________________ Dr. Michael Jakobson ________________________ Graduate School The University of Toledo August 2008 An Abstract of Yoshimoto Taka’aki’s Karl Marx: Translation and Commentary Manuel Yang Submitted as partial fulfillment for the requirements for The Doctor of Philosophy in History The University of Toledo August 2008 In 1966 the Japanese New Left thinker Yoshimoto Taka’aki published his seminal book on Karl Marx. The originality of this overview of Marx’s ideas and life lay in Yoshimoto’s stress on the young Marx’s theory of alienation as an outgrowth of a unique philosophy of nature, whose roots went back to the latter’s doctoral dissertation. It echoed Yoshimoto’s own reformulation of “alienation” (and Marx’s labor theory of value) as key concept in his theory of literary language (What is Beauty in Language), which he had just completed in 1965, and extended his argument -- ongoing from the mid-1950s -- with Japanese Marxism over questions of literature, politics, and culture. His extraction of the theme of “communal illusion” from the early Marx foregrounds his second major theoretical work of the decade, Communal Illusion, which he started to serialize in 1966 and completed in 1968, and outlines an important theoretical closure to the existential, political, and intellectual struggles he had waged since the end of the ii Pacific War.
  • The Fromm-Marcuse Debate Revisited

    The Fromm-Marcuse Debate Revisited

    351 The Fromm-Marcuse debate revisited JOHN RICKERT Department of Philosophy, University of Texas, Austin Erich Fromm has long been out of fashion.' Although Fromm was a lifelong critic of capitalist society as well as the figure chiefly responsible for the Frankfurt Institute's integration of Marx and Freud, few studies of Western Marxism examine his work in any detail;2 articles about his writings rarely appear in the leading journals of the left;3 and his death in 1980 has, as far as I know, brought forth few attempts by scholars in this country to examine what his legacy might be.4 The neglect of Fromm's contribution is due in part5 to the interpreta- tion placed on his work by his former colleagues at the Institute of Social Research - most notably, Herbert Marcuse.6 In his famous "Critique of Neo-Freudian Revisionism," Marcuse argued that although Fromm's early work is indeed radical, his later psychology is essentially conform- ist in character. In rejecting Freud's libido theory and certain elements of his metapsychology, Fromm, H. S. Sullivan, and Karen Homey, Mar- cuse wrote, had deprived psychoanalysis of its most critical concepts, stripped it of a "conceptual basis outside the established system" (Eros and Civilization,7 hereafter cited as EC, p. 6), and in its place offered an idealistic ethic that preached adaptation to the status quo. Since the renaissance of critical theory in the 1960s, Marcuse's essay has set the tone for the left's reading of Fromm's work. The aim of the pres- ent article is to challenge this interpretation by arguing that it fundamen- tally distorts both the general tenor and specific content of Fromm's thought.
  • Marxism, Ecology, and Contemporary Architectural Theory

    Marxism, Ecology, and Contemporary Architectural Theory

    humanities Article Is Green the New Red? Marxism, Ecology, and Contemporary Architectural Theory Curtis Swope Department of Modern Languages and Literatures, Trinity University, 1 Trinity Place, San Antonio, TX 78212-7200, USA; [email protected] Abstract: This essay examines the role of Marxist concepts in recent architectural theories of ecology using two architecture firms, Estudio Teddy Cruz and Sauerbruch Hutton (SH), as case studies. In their writings, Cruz and SH mobilize the critique of capital, a dialectical materialist understanding of history, and the Frankfurt School’s critique of functionalist culture for the theorization of sustainable design. Their work has two vital ramifications for current sustainability discourses in two different fields which this essay seeks to bridge. For Marxist theorists concerned about ecology but averse to Western Marxism because of its supposed idealism, Cruz and SH show anew the importance of aesthetic concerns to conceptions of the environment. For design scholars accustomed to thinking of Marxism as having been absorbed into broader debates about cultural studies, the architects’ theories have the potential to recentralize the left-wing inheritance through its adaptation to concerns of ecology. In addition, in the essay’s conclusion, I reflect briefly, as a suggestion for further research, on how Cruz’s and SH’s architectural practice and theories might productively be analyzed in light of the terms of the Adorno-Benjamin debate of the 1930s over the political status of the cultural products of capital. Can eighty-year old discussions of the potentially revolutionary and retrograde qualities of mass cultural objects be relevant to radical thought in the age of climate change.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies 40Th

    American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies 40Th

    American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies 40th National Convention November 20–23, 2008 Philadelphia Marriott Downtown Philadelphia, Pennsylvania American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies 8 Story Street, 3rd fl oor Cambridge, MA 02138 tel.: 617-495-0677, fax: 617-495-0680 e-mail: [email protected] web site: www.aaass.org iii CONTENTS Convention Schedule Overview ................................................................. iv List of the Meeting Rooms at the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown ............ v Diagrams of Meeting Rooms at the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown.....vi-ix Exhibit Hall Diagram ...................................................................................x Index of Exhibitors, Alphabetical................................................................ xi Index of Exhibitors, by Booth Number .......................................................xii 2008 AAASS Board of Directors ...............................................................xiii AAASS National Offi ce .............................................................................xiii Program Committee for the 2008 Convention ..........................................xiii AAASS Affi liates .......................................................................................xiv 2008 AAASS Institutional Members ......................................................... xv Program Summary ...................................................................................xvi Important Meeting Notes ......................................................................xxxvi