tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post6629223523711821341..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Lukacs and Orthodox MarxismPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-89333942427449842602011-05-08T14:00:45.689+01:002011-05-08T14:00:45.689+01:00I'm reading "History and Class Consciousn...I'm reading "History and Class Consciousness" now and stumbled across this blog. I appreciate the great analysis and look forward to reading more posts about Lukacs. I'll be forwarding this to a buddy who is reading the book as well. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-35124540532203622792008-08-18T22:54:00.000+01:002008-08-18T22:54:00.000+01:00Yep. The more I read Lukacs, the more it appears t...Yep. The more I read Lukacs, the more it appears to me that For Marx and Reading Capital were <I>linguistic</I> reconstructions of Marxism in the fashionable language of the day. I'll probably dig out my old For Marx notes at some point and start blogging about them, that's if I haven't bored everyone to death with Lukacs by then ;) Btw, good post on Marx.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-87220931404286660382008-08-18T11:29:00.000+01:002008-08-18T11:29:00.000+01:00"Also, already, I can tell from what I've read so ..."Also, already, I can tell from what I've read so far that Althusser's polemics against Hegelian Marxism were way off base."<BR/><BR/>There is a secret tunnel between the two (both, of course, were ultimately stalinists). Both are stated Marxism's of method. Althusser's Marxism was self-verifying, idealist... precisely what he saw as wrong with Hegelian Marxism.Adam Markshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18155314207452345741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-43537731763760820912008-08-17T09:43:00.000+01:002008-08-17T09:43:00.000+01:00Quite right, Roobin. Credit where credit's due, I ...Quite right, Roobin. Credit where credit's due, I remember thinking John Rees' chapter on Lukacs in his Algebra of Revolution was very good when I read it many moons ago. Also, already, I can tell from what I've read so far that Althusser's polemics against Hegelian Marxism were way off base. I don't think you can accuse Lukacs of reducing all phenomena to a simple essence, especially when Lukacs himself warns against that procedure! Makes you wonder if Althusser really did bother reading History and Class Consciousness ...Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-61590569734932992042008-08-14T13:34:00.000+01:002008-08-14T13:34:00.000+01:00It's a fine book. However, Lukacs gets a deserved ...It's a fine book. However, Lukacs gets a deserved pile on for:<BR/><BR/>"Let us assume for the sake of argument that recent research had disproved once and for all every one of Marx's individual theses. Even if this were to be proved, every serious ‘orthodox’ Marxist would still be able to accept all such modern findings without reservation and hence dismiss all of Marx’s theses in toto – without having to renounce his orthodoxy for a single moment."<BR/><BR/>What kind of theory is right but produces wrong results?Adam Markshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18155314207452345741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-58783556039311734302008-08-13T14:53:00.000+01:002008-08-13T14:53:00.000+01:00Also worth reading is Paul Mattick on Karl Korsch ...Also worth reading is Paul Mattick on Karl Korsch <BR/><BR/>Karl Korsch: His Contribution to Revolutionary Marxism<BR/>http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1962/korsch.htm<BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/>The Marxism of Karl Korsch<BR/>http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1964/korsch.htmajohnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09874891810770297962noreply@blogger.com