Titlebook: Rethinking the Normative Content of Critical Theory; Marx, Habermas and B Bob Cannon Book 2001 Bob Cannon 2001 capitalism.critical theory.J

Obligatory

Marx’s Critique of Political Economy versus his Critique of CapitalismIn an article on Max Horkheimer entitled ‘Critical Theory and Political Economy’, Moishe Postone and Barbara Brick argue that:

忍受

并入

Marx, Morality and Exploitationnshistorical) standpoint of production, workers are paid less than the value they produce for capital. Consequently, while capitalism appears just from the standpoint of exchange, it appears unjust from the standpoint of production.

Rct393

Communicative Action foundation. In this chapter I trace the origins of Habermas’s attempt to provide critical theory with a normative ground from Marx through Georg Lukacs to Habermas’s Frankfurt School predecessors. In particular, I want to emphasize the importance of Max Weber’s account of ‘instrumental reason’ on this trajectory and the errors it has led to.

枯萎將要

Struggles for Social Welfareof labour with an intersubjective account, he fails to acknowledge sufficiently the ‘moral’ content of workers’ ‘material’ struggles. To rectify this I propose to view workers’ struggles as attempts to retrieve the intersubjective domain lost beneath the system’s diremption of ‘ethical life’.

不可磨滅

Book 2001historical categories that are vulnerable to his own critique of political economy. Jurgen Habermas and Axel Honneth seek to correct this by placing critical theory on a normative foundation. Unfortunately, they restrict this to the cultural sphere. By extending their notion of intersubjectivity to

LIMIT

Struggles for Moral Redemptionby grounding his own version of ‘undamaged intersubjectivity’ in an underlying ‘philosophical anthropology’. To this extent, Honneth, like Marx and Habermas before him, grounds critical theory, not in the struggles of participants to redeem the normative promise of modernity, but in a social ontology that the latter is tasked to realize.

畸形

Concluding Remarksess a means to judge the ‘pathologies’ of modernity than a manifestation of them. No matter how benign the motives behind this undertaking, it comprises an attempt to criticize modernity from a standpoint incompatible with its normative content.

Extricate

visceral-fat

Book 2001ritical theory on a normative foundation. Unfortunately, they restrict this to the cultural sphere. By extending their notion of intersubjectivity to the economic system it can be viewed as an inactive form of morality which social movements influence in the course of their struggles.