Although Marx’s writings still have great value, Marxist discourse has lost its value. It is up to the protagonists of social liberation to remodel the theoretical references so as to illuminate a possible escape route out of contemporary history.

Felix Guattari 2000:43/44

Once history moves on and the social reality changes, then old theories are no longer adequate. We need new theories for the new reality. To follow Marx’s method, one must depart from Marx’s theories to the extent that the object of his critique, capitalist production and capitalist society as a whole, has changed.

Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri 2005:140


The concept of Critical Theory stems from the Frankfurt school, and in particular Max Horkheimer’s 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory. Whereas the purpose of traditional theory is presented as hermeneutics – gaining an understanding of society, Horkheimer (1972:243) explains the purpose of critical theory is ‘The abolition of social injustice.’ Theory is conceived not purely as an academic tool which transcends society, but exists within it as a weapon with which to enact radical social change. As Mark Poster surmises

Critical theory springs from the assumption that we live amid a world of pain, that much can be done to alleviate that pain, and that theory has a crucial role to play in that process. (1989:3)

As such Critical Theory is inextricably tied to the context and specific forms of social domination and injustice under which it was written, and must be periodically refined to ensure its relevance to the social context to which it intends to be applied. ‘A theory always remains a hypothesis. One must be ready to change it if its weaknesses begin to show as one works through the material.’(Horkheimer, 1972, 188) As such the tradition of Critical Theory can be continued while taking steps away from the culturally and historically specific analysis of Marx and the Frankfurt School, many of whose ideas have been fatally undermined or lost relevance as society has changed.



Guattari , Felix (2000) The Three Ecologies, trans Ian Pindar and Paul Sutton, London, Athelone Press

Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio (2005) Multitude: War and democracy in the Age of Empire, Penguin Books, London

Horkheimer, Max (1968 trans 1972) Translated by Matthew J O’Connell and others Critical Theory – Selected Essays

Poster, Mark (1989) Critical Theory and Poststructuralism: In Search of a Context . Ithaca, N.Y. & London: Cornell University Press.

To reply to the last part of your post, regarding the status of continental philosophy in USA, there is some work being done in that tradition at a few universities such as Stanford, the University of Chicago and Fordham. U of C has (my beloved) Jean-Luc Marion as a visiting lecturer (from Paris) each year and Fordham's press has a series on continental philosophy. What's usually called "theory" in English departments is critical theory or cultural studies, not continental philosophy in the sense of ontology, existentialism, etc.

Regarding Marx, obviously improvements can be made, but one must not be too quick to overlook him, he was a very complex thinker. Marx often gets associated with his ad-hoc political writings, which now are, I agree, of mostly historical interest. Yet there is .... *Das Kapital*, the monumental, byzantine work that Marx claimed was the best expression of his thought. It's over 1000 pages. Most people simply don't have the intellectual stamina to do a close reading of *Das Kapital*, I myself certainly am among them. From what I gather, however, I think his ideas on consciousness are particularly important and neglected.

Effectively, the theory is that communism, if nothing else, heightens consciousness of economic production in a way that capitalism, with its emphasis on individual choice, does not. The choice between communism and capitalism is then presented as one between a higher state of consciousness and naïvete, for example equating the market price of something with its true value. This is where Marx's real, lasting contribution to philosophy comes in. Marx uses many very sophisticated arguments about the nature of rationality to show that, to put it somewhat askewed, rational choice theory will cause the downfall of capitalism.

Marx is more like Aristotle than like Socrates. He does have a few pithy sayings, but his philosophy has an irreducible complexity that does seem to be lost on many of his followers. I do not think it is fair to dismiss him as a proponent of a totalizing narrative (although it is fair to dismiss Freud for that reason). Marx never laid out any grand plan for a communist society. His argument was only that the fall of capitalism is inevitable because of its inherent injustice and, eventually, inefficiency. Communism or something like it would follow.

Perhaps this is mere coffee shop banter. But to put theory into practice *would* require a totalizing narrative that would explain social reality in a revolutionary way. The problem really is that Marx was both a political activist and a philosopher. His philosophy was much more nuanced and considered than was his political program.

Also, if you look at most of the economies of western Europe, which, in my opinion, is the region of the world furthest along Marx's path of dialectical materialism, democratic socialism is the official political system. Marx was right, capitalism eventually exhausts itself in empire and crumbles... at least according to the western Europeans -- who are the world's most highly educated people. Coincidence?

As for USA, we remain economically dominant as a capitalist society only because of our empire. The Europeans got that out of their system already (the sad, petty little games still being played by England with Ireland and Russia with Chechnya, Georgia, Poland, Lithuania, etc. notwithstanding). Once the effects of overreach and decadence start, like cancer, to spread and mutate, we'll go the same way as all the European empires and quite likely end up with a very similar economic system.

By the way, here is an interview that some might find germane: www.findarticles.com/p/artic...764486By the

These responses are great. My own relation to Marxism is peculiar, because I have basically ignored Marxian theory until very recently. So I'm coming to it after having been ruptured by the idea of Foucauldian power beforehand. The Frankfurt School idea of "critique" is only one way of positing a difference in the types of questions being asked by analytic versus continental philosophers. I'm sure there are many other ways of thinking about the difference (or lack thereof, right?).

Thanks again for your feedback!

--Natalie--