> But you wouldn't have made such a dismissive comment
without having chewed over what they actually wrote, right?
It was Marcuse's comment - i was simply repeating it.
> And since it will be impossible for you to cite a passage in
which such a prediction is made, this characterization reduces
to an unsubstantiated attack on Grossmann as dogmatic.
Well, Marcuse makes the claim, I should have put it in quotes.
Martin Jay also mentions something along the same lines in The Dialectical Imagination. But you wouldn't have raised this point unless you knew about that right?
> Ken, you may fancy yourself some kind of expert on the
Frankfurt School and this is doubtless why your seemingly
total ignorance of Grossmann's argument has forced you into
slander.
Yes. And you probably wouldn't have worried about it unless you thought it might be true.
> It seems to me that you are just saying that your
ignornance is without consequence since Grossmann must
have been dogmatic to have had his career spiked by
Horkheimer. Or perhaps you believe that Grossmann must
have been dogmatic because he went to Leipzig to teach after
the War, but then don't forget to mention how Horkheimer
made it impossible for Grossmann to teach at Columbia. Nor
forget that Grossmann held the Soviet Union responsible for
strangling the German Communists and preventing them from
making a revolution.
Ya like the gossip eh? Me too. But it doesn't contribute to theory so it loses my interest quickly.
> In Grossmann's work, I read a theoretical critique of
Hilderding's thesis of the possibility of stabilization (of which
Marcuse is a heir) and political strategy of legal bank
nationalization through parliamentary majority; an *empirical*
and theoretical analysis of the increasing weakness of
counter-tendencies in several different countries; an argument
that the US stock market boom was not built on real
foundations; an explanation for why capital had begun to
intensify the labor process to the detriment of the working
class; an arugment to why national competition would
heighten and probably lead to war.
Well then, no one needs to dump on Marcuse for being funded by the CIA or the US gov (those "big others!")
> In other theoretical work, I read an attempt to demonstrate
why capitalism has to be simultaneously understood as a
technical and value process or as a developing contradiction
between use value and value; why there is no tendency
towards equilibrium; why Marx's main contribution was not to
> historicize or economics (rather he argues that Marx
developed 1. a general theory of transitions in the mode of
production, 2. a theory of the objective developmental
tendencies of capitalism, 3. the theory of class struggle as the
lever of historical change--to which Marcuse's Great Refusal
is oppposed); an explanation of why the value price problem
should not be analyzed on the basis of the equilibrium
conditions of simple reproduction in vol II ( a point made by
many Marxists today without mention of Grossmann's critique
of Bortkiewicz on this matter).
If class struggle is objective then it cannot be 'theorized' in the manner in which you categorize it ("the lever of historical change"). The logocentric / monological theorization of class struggle renders it a causal object which neglects a creative and undetermined subjective dimension (I'll defer here to Castoriadis, Zizek, Copjec, Heller, Lacan, and Salecl in case Derrida makes you vomit). In other words - Marcuse's Great Refusal - an emphatic refusal - is part and parcel of a Hegelian praxis vs. a positivistic analysis of political economy. But don't worry, don't let philosophizing get in your way - I'm glad Grossmann's work is able to inspire you (dare I mention jouissance?)
> If you want to defend Pollock's theory of state capitalism,
then respond to Neumann's critique in Behemoth and the
continuation of that argument by Postone in Time, Labor and
Social Domination. But it's sad that in all those critical theory
readers, Pollock's theory is not juxtaposed to Neumann's
refutation. I think this makes for a good debate. But it's a
debate dogmatic followers of "Critical Theory" don't have the
stomach for.
I like Postone's work quite a bit - I'm even fairly partial to his critique of Habermas. But, to be honest, I don't have the stomach for Pollock, Neumann and Grossmann. The debate, from what I know about them, suffer from certain sociological deficiencies regarding the interplay between language and psyche. But we each have our interests.
take care, taking care, ken