Resumen En el presente trabajo nos acercaremos a las reflexiones aristotélicas sobre lo económico, desde la perspectiva de Karl Polanyi, precisamente porque éste acude al filósofo griego con el ánimo de obtener elementos útiles para construir una profunda crítica de la moderna sociedad de mercado. Aristóteles intuyó el futuro incierto de un orden social devorado por relaciones económicas en hipertrófica expansión. En su época, desde luego, tal amenaza sólo era potencial y jamás vio la culminación efectiva de nada semejante. No (...) obstante, a pesar de ello, fue capaz de visualizar el significado último de lo que estaba en juego, además pudo comprender que un crecimiento desmedido y descontrolado de las relaciones mercantiles acabaría trastocando irremediablemente el equilibrio cívico; entendió que la extensión irrestricta del deseo de ganancia a todos los lazos humanos supondría una potente amenaza contra la médula misma de la comunidad política.This study approaches Aristotelian reflections on economy through the eyes of Karl Polanyi, as he resorts to the Greek philosopher to find useful elements when building a profound criticism of the modern market society. Aristotle intuited the uncertain future of a social order devoured by economic relations expanding at a hypertrophic rate. In his time, indeed, this was only a potential threat -he never saw the effective culmination of anything like what we are seeing today-. But he was nevertheless able to see the ultimate meaning of what was at stake, and to understand that the unmeasured, uncontrolled growth of market relations would irremediably affect the civic balance. He understood that the unrestricted extension of the desire for profit to all human ties would be a powerful threat to the heart of the political community. (shrink)

In my dissertation, I argue that Juergen Habermas misinterprets Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment. Habermas claims that Adorno and Horkheimer universalize instrumental reason, and that they hence undermine their own discursive-rational contribution. He thinks critical social theory can only be reflexively grounded if it recognizes as its pragmatic truth-condition a counterfactually conceived communicative procedure that would be free of distortion. In my view, Habermas dedifferentiates the dialectic of enlightenment. Adorno and Horkheimer do not reduce thought to instrumental (...) reason, and they characterize enlightenment as a historically differentiated process. They maintain that enlightenment comprises both instrumental and critical thought, critical thought being understood by them as determinate negation. I interpret Dialectic of Enlightenment as a theory of the formation of the subject. Furthermore, I contend that Adorno's Negative Dialectics and Aesthetic Theory eschew Habermas's mistaken reading of Dialectic of Enlightenment. They develop the latter's dialectical account of subjectivization. Negative Dialectics and Aesthetic Theory advance against the backdrop of Dialectic of Enlightenment's theory of the progressive instrumentalization of the self the idea of an unregimented subjective knowledge and experience of nature. (shrink)

The 1930s–1940s underwent profound structural economic and political turmoil following the collapse of the nineteenth century liberal market economies. The intellectual debates of the time were dominated by the question of whether Marx’s theory of the tendency of rate of profit to fall was true, or what consequence could be imagined in the survival of capitalist societies. Placed in the middle of such debates was also the reorganization of national productions into war economies. By means of reconstructive analysis, the paper (...) provides a critical overview of the debates that took place within the circle of the Frankfurt School during those years. It also advances an interpretive thesis suggesting that remedies to capitalist crises of the time turned state powers into privatized, illiberal coercive entities. Coercion and privatization reinforced each other. This general tendency is well illustrated by the famous Pollock-Neumann debate. These intellectuals expressed views not only intended to shed light on the historical period of time, but also to formulate long-term considerations on the authoritarian trends embedded in our contemporary democracies. Through historical reconstruction, the paper’s aim is to identify a long-term structural thread of transformation starting from the transformation of the German economy in 1930s and touching upon post Second World War problems of states’ restructuring along privatization/coercion divides. (shrink)

In 1943, Henryk Grossman sent a draft of the study, eventually published in two parts as ‘The Evolutionist Revolt against Classical Economics’, to Max Horkheimer for comment. His very hostile response, Grossman’s drafts and the published study cast light not only on the changing relationship between Grossman and Horkheimer but also on the distance between Grossman’s classical Marxism and nascent mature Critical Theory. Grossman’s study identified the emergence of the idea of successive economic systems in the work of Condorcet, Henri (...) Saint-Simon and Simonde de Sismondi in France, James Steuart and Richard Jones in England, culminating in Marx’s formulations which entailed the role of class struggle and capitalism’s tendency to break down. Hegel was not an influence on Marx’s conception of modes of production. In addition to a series of spurious and minor criticisms, Horkheimer objected that Grossman’s approach was positivist, that it misconceived Hegel’s philosophy, and that it amounted to a conventional history of ideas. In response, Grossman made some changes in his study, but these were designed to strengthen his main arguments and successfully reaffirmed his Marxist approach in the face of Horkheimer’s criticisms. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the development of the political thought of Czech Marxist philosopher Egon Bondy. It examines his criticism of state socialism in the Eastern Block from a Marxist perspective, and it outlines the development of his analysis. The study covers the period from the late 1960s until the Velvet Revolution in 1989, a period during which Bondy explored the historical constitution and nature of a ‘new ruling class’ in the USSR, as well as deeper trends of convergence between (...) Eastern and Western politico-economical systems. In the 1980s Bondy analysed the reasons for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Even though Bondy was, during most of the period of state socialism between 1948–89, a forbidden author, he was also one of the main critics of the political approach of Charta 77 and Václav Havel. This criticism is also outlined in the paper. (shrink)

The critique of capitalism is the bedrock on which rests the reputation of Frankfurt School critical theory. Though critical theory has often been heralded – or criticized and rejected – as a reformulation of Marxian theory for our times, its relation with the critique of political economy, and in particular the economic treatises, has barely been studied. Friedrich Pollock, who was Max Horkheimer’s lifelong friend and close associate at the Institute for Social Research, was responsible for all administrative and financial (...) questions, but he wrote few theoretical essays and Wiggershaus calls him ‘the last unknown member of the Frankfurt School’. Nevertheless this article asks whether not only has his influence on early critical theory been sorely underestimated, but also his impact on the late philosophies of Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse. (shrink)