“The Philosophy of Praxis – Marx, Lukács and the Frankfurt School” by Andrew Feenberg, 2014
The reason I picked up this book is to see Feenberg’s
analysis of the Frankfurt School. Feenberg is a Canadian prof and philosopher
who studied under Marcuse and participated in May-June 1968 in France. The Frankfurt School (FS) were a group of
mostly German cultural and political theorists –Adorno, Benjamin, Habermas, Horkheimer,
Marcuse and so on. They are sometimes
grouped under the title of ‘critical theory,’ which seems rather bland. I’m going to focus on several chapters, not
the book as a whole. Praxis is a fancy
name for practice and action in the application of a theory. It is the bridge between understanding and
political implementation. Every skill is a product of ‘praxis,’ from carpentry
to ice skating to revolution.
Praxis involves going beyond philosophy. Marx contended that social change would
change ideas – hence ‘philosophizing’ in the abstract would eventually end. Since ideas are imminent in society, nature, labor and the human body, resolving the contradiction between capital and labor would
empty present society of much nonsense. Just
as the demise of religion is not the work of argument so much as the work of
social and economic change.
Feenberg says that the FS was inspired by Marx and Lukács,
especially on the topics of nature and reification. Reification means turning a relation or human
into a thing, and, conversely, a thing into an active subject. Lukács saw this as a result of
commodification and a form of alienation. Feenberg uses it perhaps too frequently.
These Marxist thinkers are all marked by their time in
history. In the aftermath of WWII, the
FS became pessimistic, seeing a failure of praxis and certainly rationalism in
the light of Nazi crimes. They ignored
the anti-colonial revolutions, the ‘state socialism’ of east and central Europe
and the semi-proletarian victory in China after the war. Hence their focus was on
bourgeois cultures of consent; hegemony; ideology; false consciousness;
commodity fetishism; reification; consumerism and art. Most avoided political engagement in any
practical manner. Angela Davis was told
by Adorno to stay away from 1960s radical movements as they were unworthy of
intellectuals. Lukács made fun of the FS
as living in ‘the Grand Hotel Abyss,’
an ivory tower on the edge of a vast hole.
Marcuse was the only one that took a more involved tack with the New
Left.
Feenberg is not that fond of classical Marxism and makes
some stereotypical asides about Marx. He
does not see revolution on the agenda anywhere.
He embraces Marcuse’s “One Dimensional Man,” which was popular
with early elements of SDS in the U.S. Marcuse
insisted that capitalist technology and science would, if continued, be
oppressive unless it was completely redirected towards human ends under
socialism. I don’t think many, even
Marx, would disagree. Feenberg comments that Marcuse missed technical fixes
already implicit in society, like disability ramps and curbs, when he denounced
nearly all current science or technique as exploitative. Marcuse thought the main problem with tech
and science is not quantification or method but its purpose for profit, i.e.
‘valorization.’
Regarding nature, in 1972 Marcuse pointed out that nature
has a value beyond capital or even labor.
This, as anyone who has studied Marx’s environmentalism, would not upset
the old man either. Nature has its own
right to exist, and this is not romanticism but a simple reduction in
alienation and an embrace of cohabitation. A mountain in New Zealand, Mt. Taranaki
Maunga, now has ‘personhood,’ so it is already happening on the legal front. Marcuse might have gone further to a form of
aestheticism about nature - yet as anyone knows, nature can also turn ugly.
Feenberg thinks, while revolutionary organizing and even
transitional organizing is not on the table, what can work is: “That
dimension is the horizontal work of establishing the framework of meaning
within which activity goes on.” Perhaps you can guess what that tortured
formulation means, but it reminds me of ‘the old mole,’ patiently digging lateral
tunnels underground until the time is riper.
Yet do moles always know what is happening above ground? Will they meet other moles? Certainly the ground under capital is
becoming shakier and shakier perhaps because of all this isolated digging.
Feenberg sums up by saying that the ‘philosophy of praxis’
negates idealism – i.e. religion, bourgeois philosophy and ideas; scientism and the
like. Idealism sublimates concrete
social realities, attempting to hide them from sight. A successful class
struggle reconciles idealism’s false antimonies – opposites - and weakens or
overthrows reified institutions, which in Feenberg’s meaning are markets,
bureaucracies and technologies. Abstract
reason is transformed into dialectical rationality by this ‘metacritique’ of philosophy, as it is dissolved
by praxis / practice / change in the real world.
For the FS the bureaucratized USSR or China had little
relation to the Paris Commune or the Shanghai Communes. Their pessimism concluded that the
proletariat was not able to achieve power, even after 1968 in France. Adorno descended into dystopian despair while
Marcuse was inspired by the New Left’s cultural politics and began to advocate
a ‘technological transformation.’ By the
way we might be seeing this in the current rise of some green tech. Feenberg constructed a simplified and partly
erroneous chart showing Marx, Lukács, Adorno and Marcuse’s attitudes towards
practice, history, dialectics, finitude and the unity of theory and
practice. I personally don’t see the
point of this chart, except as a student exercise.
 |
| Herbert Marcuse |
Feenberg calls for the “democratic
transformation of technology.” His
suggestions for the Marxist movement are somewhat vague, but quotes Lukács as
to the ‘dialectical method’ being the key to Marxism, not specific facts. In that context he argues that in various
fields within capitalism now – in the media, in medical, internet and
environmental arenas for instance – the ‘enlargement
of the public sphere’ and the human dimension is contesting with the profit
and alienation dimension. He asserts
that the road to revolution no longer runs just through the factory, but
through these ‘cognitive’ areas. It’s
not clear if he’s abandoned the former all together or not. He calls this ‘praxis’
“democratic rationalization.” He has a point. Seeing the development of socialist
tendencies within capital is essential to understanding development,
including after any social revolution.
It is similar to the fact that WalMart, Ford or Microsoft are fully
planned internally, while the external ‘market’ economy is still chaotic.
Feenberg makes the error of thinking that the FS somehow
invented Marxist environmentalism. It
did not. He does agree that their focus on aesthetics is narrow … “but suggestive.” Ahh, yes.
He makes a plea for a “totalizing
critique” in the horizontal dimension… meaning a contest for state power is
as yet far away in ‘developed’ capitalist countries presumably. Feenberg has no practical suggestion on how
this horizontal work of knitting below-ground oppositional elements together
will actually happen. Suggestions for
independent labor candidates, for a labor party, for a faction within the NDP, for
college, military, community, indigenous or work networks and committees, or a Left, united or
anti-fascist front are missing, as is anything else more tangible. It seems that various single-issue,
oppositional organizations working in their fields will somehow, in some way,
unite. They won’t. These particular moles are blind.
Feenberg defends Marcuse’s aesthetic slogan of “The Great Refusal” in the face of
bourgeois co-optation and the social-democratic one of “A Long March Through the Institutions.” So how has that ‘long
march’ turned out? This reminds me of
Samir Amin’s point that it would take ‘centuries’ for socialism to be
established. We don't have that long. Feenberg insists, in 2014, that this ‘long march’ is
the only method of ‘mediation’ and praxis for the Marxist movement. He calls
this work ‘radical reformism,’ a language we have heard from the U.S. DSA too. I’m not sure how radical these contestations are, as none
have achieved actual power. So Feenberg
is essentially still a Marcusian, even after the demise of the New Left.
Feenberg mentions the alternative of ‘repression and recession’ once, which now seems to be the direction capital is going, even in ‘central’ capitalist countries. If they succeed, there will be no institutions left to ‘march through.’
To find prior blogspot reviews on this subject, use blog search box, upper left, to investigate our 19 year archive, using these terms: “Lukacs,” “Marcuse,” “Frankfurt School,” “praxis,” “Fully Automated Luxury Communism,” “The People’s Republic of Wal-Mart,” “Benjamin.”
May Day has shelves of Marxist analysis and philosophy. This I got it at a college library!
Red Frog / March 24, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment