Habermas critiques Marx

[Anonymous No.21264865]

>traditional Marxist analysis… today, when we use the means of the critique of political economy… can no longer make clear predictions: for that, one would still have to assume the autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system. I do not believe in such an autonomy. Precisely for this reason, the laws governing the economic system are no longer identical to the ones Marx analyzed. Of course, this does not mean that it would be wrong to analyze the mechanism which drives the economic system; but in order for the orthodox version of such an analysis to be valid, the influence of the political system would have to be ignored
>Habermas reiterated the positions that what refuted Marx and his theory of class struggle was the "pacification of class conflict" by the welfare state, which had developed in the West "since 1945", thanks to "a reformist relying on the instruments of Keynesian economics". Italian philosopher and historian Domenico Losurdo criticised the main point of these claims as "marked by the absence of a question that should be obvious:— Was the advent of the welfare state the inevitable result of a tendency inherent in capitalism? Or was it the result of political and social mobilization by the subaltern classes—in the final analysis, of a class struggle? Had the German philosopher posed this question, perhaps he would have avoided assuming the permanence of the welfare state, whose precariousness and progressive dismantlement are now obvious to everyone".

Nothing but bangers from this nigga.

[Anonymous No.21264995]

Amazin'

[Anonymous No.21265017]

>>21264865
Habermas is probably the most naive public intellectual we have today. And there's no excuse: unlike Steven Pinker or Sam Harris - who respectively only read paeans to liberalism or nothing at all - he came out of the heterodox and interesting Frankfurt School, attempting to undo all their progress.

Read Raymond Geuss's criticisms of Habermas, he's infinitely more worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.21265022]

>>21265017
>Habermas is probably the most naive public intellectual we have today. And there's no excuse: unlike Steven Pinker or Sam Harris - who respectively only read paeans to liberalism or nothing at all - he came out of the heterodox and interesting Frankfurt School, attempting to undo all their progress.
you type like a dumbass

[Anonymous No.21265023]

>>21264865
That's it?
I have seen better criticisms of Marx in /lit/ threads by people that haven't read him.

[Anonymous No.21265038]

>>21265023
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, all the "omg why we talkin' Marx, bros, he was solved by the Soviets and the Chinese!!!!!" are surely convincing.

[Anonymous No.21265039]

>>21265022
Your mom doesn't give me much time in between sessions.

[Anonymous No.21265053]

>>21265039
My mother is laughing at your post right now, we're shitposting on /lit/ and she told me you like cbt.

[Anonymous No.21265057]

>>21265022
>>21265039
>>21265053
>mfw this keeps escalating and ww3 starts on 4chan

[Anonymous No.21265087]

>>21265057
Nah, now he'll just lie and say "y-your mother is now with me and she said I had a big, large, 15 inch cock..." or he will tell the truth and admit he doesn't even know who she is and has had no sexual relations with her.

[Anonymous No.21265097]

Yeah? Well, y-your mother is now with me and she said I had a big, la--

Oh shit...

[Anonymous No.21265098]

>>21265087
based de-escalating regress ending checkmater

[Anonymous No.21265195]

>>21264865
I can't take in serious consideration anything that Habermas says. (But being sincere, I also can't say he isn't right in what you posted). The fact is that Habermas tried to take out communist overdeterminational marxism out of the left, and in that movement went full deterritorialization in direction to the democratic right (what anglos think in terms of libertarian left). He did what Frankfurt incestuous and chronic masturbators wanted to do ---but could not do for that would have resulted in their public humiliation--- and got nested in superfluous anglo problematics. Its a shame, but also an example on why you should not take in consideration any marxist theory written by theorycels (ergo, communism is a scam for the working class can't think, nor write by itself ---and at this point of history, it does not exist).

[Anonymous No.21265208]

>>21265195
>He did what Frankfurt incestuous and chronic masturbators wanted to do ---but could not do for that would have resulted in their public humiliation
How so? I understood the rest but what do you think could have gone better? To me it seems like being mired in neoliberalism was the only logical conclusion to jettisoning the eschatological aspects of true economistic Marxism, at least the latter was still oppositional to liberal regimes

Also the Marcuse interview on Bryan Magee's show (on Youtube) is really fucking good

[Anonymous No.21265224]

>>21265208
>How so?
Adorno and Horkheimer are just 2 capitalistic ---and anti-comunist--- pigs that were so ashame of it that they became neurotic about USA ---same phenomenon you see with closseted tranny-nazis that become obssesed with trans people.

[Anonymous No.21265456]

>>21264865
Dude's so ugly and dysgenic his philosophy has to be utter shit. I bet this faggot is total fucking lameass loser tryhard in an attempt to convince people he isn't retarded.
>Oh look honey! That retard said something kind of obvious, but which is surprising for a retard to come up with on his own. Quick give him a pat on the head and call him a good boy.
Sorry but pity praise does not an intelligent philosopher make.

[Anonymous No.21265463]

>>21265456
Based, I will never read Habermas again

[Anonymous No.21265493]

>>21265456
He said somwhere that most of his ideas about ---I don't remember what--- were originated by the feeling that he could have been aborted if his parents knew he developed his harelip.

[Anonymous No.21265549]

>>21264995
Is that all you have to say.

[Anonymous No.21265907]

>>21264865
>Habermas does a superficial analysis of the relationship between technology and politics. He is content with arguments like: "the orientation of technological progress depends on public investments," hence on politics. He seems to be totally unaware of dozens of studies (including Galbraith's or mine) showing the subordination of political decisions to technological imperatives. He winds up with the elementary wish to "get hold of technology again" and "place it under the control of public opinion . . . reintegrate it within the consensus of the citizens.” The matter is, alas, a wee bit more complicated; likewise, when he contrasts the technocratic schema with the decision-making schema. To grasp the interaction, he ought to study L. Sfez (Critique de la décision, 1974). And Habermas's discussion of the "pragmatic model" is along the lines of a pious hope, a wish: the process of scientification of politics, such as appears desirable to him, is a "must.” But the reality of this technicization of politics actually occurs on a different model! Habermas poses the philosophical problem honesty: The true problem is to know if, having reached a certain level of knowledge capable of bringing certain consequences, one is content to put that knowledge at the disposal of men involved in technological manipulations, or whether one wants men communicating among themselves to retake possession of that knowledge in their very language. But Habermas poses the problem outside of any reality. When reading this text, we need only ask: Who is that "one" who puts technology at the disposal of either group? Who exercises this (if you like) supreme “will”?

[Anonymous No.21267355]

>>21265549
yes

[sage No.21268290]

>>21265087
>>21265098
not very faustian
confirmed shitskins

[Anonymous No.21268298]

>>21264865
Habermas went full retard and deconstructed himself during Covid.

[Anonymous No.21268308]

>>21268298
he's still alive?

[Anonymous No.21268320]

>>21268298
He fell in line like he was supposed to do.

[Anonymous No.21268446]

kinda wonder if there's some kind of rare critiques of marx like feminist critique of marxist dialectical materialism or confucianist critique of marxist historical materialism