"This sociology went beyond the critical theory of society concived by Marx in order to reflect reality more adequately. One point is very important. For Marx had ideal of a society of free human beings. He believed thet this capitalist society would necessarily have to be overcome by the solidarity spelled by the increasing immiseration of the working class. This idea is wrong. This society in which we live does not immiserate the workers but helps them to build a better life. And apart from that. Marx did not see that freedom and justice are dialectical concepts. The more freedom, the less justice and the more justice, the less freedom. The critical theory which I concived later is based on idea that one cannot determine, what is good, what a good, a free society would look like from within the society which we live in. We lack the means. But in our work we can bring up the negative aspects of this society, wich we want to change."
Thank you for uploading this. I am currently reading some of the works of Horkheimer to better understand Critical Theory in relation to philosophy and this definitely adds to that project.
@@Z_Victory_Z lol I know right. They’re being used as bait for a greater cause that they’re not even aware of. Once again, just another bunch of sheep being lead to the slaughterhouse
@@TheCrazyFinn why are u dodging the question? i just want to understand what he meant by that, because it seems that u understand. imo he thinks that freedom of one will lead to unjust society and just society can be implemented only by restricting freedom of its members and example of the former is capitalistic society?
@@twujstary1129 It's not actually about justice, but about socialist concept of social justice. It's about using grievances and misfortunes to excuse the reduction of a population's freedom. I.e. "We must secure equal outcomes, therefor you don't get to make choices regarding your own life, because that would lead to disparate outcomes".
His apparent quote about " The revolution won't happen with guns, rather will................" I am trying to find that. Some have said he never said it and it is propaganda.
A lot of zealots in these comments. Anyone who has actually read Horkheimer knows he's about as anti-utopian as they come. His primary negation of most movements (both progressive and reactionary) prior was their tendency to fall into simple singular universal solutions, the exclusion of nuance and true critical thought being their downfall. I don't know how anyone could read something like "Eclipse of Reason" and walk away thinking he's a utopian thinker. That's why I suspect most haven't actually taken the time to read him because very few escape his critique, which is far closer to a sort of social pessimism with an eye towards optimism than any sort of typical utopian thought pattern. My guess is most outrage commentors don't actually read though. Most likely relative illiterates, at least when it comes to more abstract theoretical works (likely ascribing to some form of modern pragmatism, intellectual enough to assert that it knows best without actually engaging with prominent ideas) drummed up in anger over the artificially created reactionary critical race theory "controversy". Most of these ideas aren't even taught in K-12, they can't be, they are college level courses as with most actual theory. It's too abstract for the stage of development of K-12 students.
Perhaps, but as stupid and dangerous as his uneducated detractors might be, uneducated followers of the orientation to society advocated for in this video are even more dangerous.
Justice is collective virtue/Tugendhaftigkeit. A collective grown and cultural understanding of what is right and what is wrong inside a specific society not from top to bottom based on laws but from bottom to the top based on cultural values . Justice in Germany is different from justice in China or justice in Saudi Arabia . Cause they all have different cultures and different values grown over hundreds of years. I recommend reading Heidegger being and time and laws of identity
Today we can see how Horkheimer was deluded by a brief period of 20-30 years after the war, and how far sighted Marx was to foresee more than a 100 years ahead of his time.
Marx was wrong with almost all he said. His only tangible input was the realization that socialism is utopian - yes, "utopian socialism" was a term was coined by Marx and published in 1848's Manifesto - and then bluntly inferring that such a utopia can only by sustained by terror and dictatorship. Lenin knew it very well and implemented this in Russia. Bolshevik revolution cost 10 million lives directly (comparable with the whole WW1) and decades of unimaginable suffering of multitude nations of the world that followed.
@@kojak8403 You claimed "Marx was wrong" but failed to provide any textual evidence for your claim. You also failed to show where Marx endorsed "dictatorship". You also failed to show what Lenin implemented from Marx's works.
@@user-ks1hp2pb5g You're not the smartest cookie in the jar, now are you. You have to really have close to zero knowledge about Marxism or be willfuly ignorant to state what you said. ad a) one of biggest ever Marxists - Horkheimer says Marx was wrong and explains how in this very video at 0:45 ad b) Marx advocated dictatorship of proletaryat expressis verbis in his opus magnum, i.e. the Manifesto of Communist Party (aka in its early version as the Communist Confession of Faith) ad c) Lenin implemented all points from the Manifesto, as discussed in 1902 "Shto delat" - in particular two crucial ones: narrow dedicated party in place of mass movement (against Luxemburgists) and state run terror instead of dissolution of state (against Bakunin et consortes)
@@kojak8403 Horkheimer didn't provide textual evidence, you donkey. I'm still waiting.... Again, you've failed to give textual evidence about what Marx meant in regards to the DOTP. Where did marx advocate for Vanguardism? Again, failed to provide textual evidence. Again, where did Marx advocate state run terror? Again, no textual evidence. Next time donkey, provide textual evidence for your claims.
@@user-ks1hp2pb5g Aren't you an entitled commie wannabe. You got more than you deserved already - and on a silver platter. Now move your sorry ass and do the job yourself instead of living off someone else's work.
And capitalism will only stay alive if it keeps pulling the worker out of immiseration. If capitalism cannot "deliver the goods" (and it can't pull the worker up now for various reasons) THEN capitalism is over.
listen or read closely, this theory is just an opinion. it is based on "seeminglyness" or ostensible reasoning. for all their attempts to dispel reason of the enlightenment, they simply substitute one form of reason for a worse and far less objective reason, based on as he himself states, from within his world view. those outside of the theory, therefore can criticize this "critical theory" for what it is - a weak attempt to shift the paradigm that all of western culture is negative. socialism applied by marxists, in every instance so far has resulted in both less freedom AND less justice. no culture in all human history is perfect. but the attempts to force the unicorn utopia of marxist is never possible, except at the point of a gun. If one wishes to enjoy marxism, go to venezuela. those other bastions of communism, China and Vietnam are rushing headlong to a market (capitalist) economy. this should tell you what the staunch practicing marixist think of marxism.
did you not listen to a word he said? He openly admits that Marx was wrong about capitalism's necessarily negative effects on people. He did not say there were no downsides, only that a better world can only be brought about through criticism of the existing world. I D E A L O G U E
@@michaelsieger9133 yea they just suggested dissolving society with the acid of critical theory in order to build back better …not utopian at all! … PS youre a maroon
America has been a fascist society for people of color from day one. But the unchecked power of capital will extend the fascist abuses to all Americans over time. The USA has allowed corporations to grow to monstrous proportions, which led to the gilded age of the robber barons. Tepid attempts to break up the monopolists has failed. Industry gave rise to the intelligence state, the deep state (cf. Dr. Peter Dale Scott; Dr. Peter Phillips, et al.) And, in the 20th century, the power of capital smashed labor and any hope for democratic governance. The power of capital is now exceeding the power of nation states, as technocrats in institutions with global reach, such as the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, and the World Health Organization now supercede the power of individual nations. The fascist state-corporate COVID-19 agenda with its forced medical experimentation, with forced injections of gene therapy drugs, which do not prevent infection, nor prevent transmission of the virus it claims to prevent, this increasing authoritarianism was predicted by Adorno & Horkheimer in Dialectic of Enlightenment. Have you read the book?
This theory is much more perfidious than it seems at the first glance. To fully understand Horkheimer one must realize the background. Marx divided society into base and superstructure. The base are the means of production, machines, land, factories etc. and superstructure is the culture, law, art, customs, morality, religion etc. Marx advocated a terrorist revolution with an indisputable dogma of a bloody dictatorship of proletaryat to take over societal production base by force and then forcefully transform the superstructure. This worked out in Russia in 1917 (pushing it into hell) and was then attempted a couple times in Europe (1918, 1920, 1923) and miserably failed each time. Classical Marxist recipe for communist revolution in the West did not work out, because the proletaryat did not back it, choosing instead to lift itself out of poverty by cooperating with capitalism (e.g. fordism). This is what Horkheimer means when stating that capitalism makes workers' lives better. Marxists despised the "treacherous" proletaryat for that collaboration and coined the notion of lack of "class consciousness". Marxist Antonio Gramsci advocated then for communists to focus on the superstructure instead and evolve the society into communism by taking over the culture first, and then the base will follow and full communism will be unrolled. He called it "cultural hegemony". Horkheimer was a Marxist revisionist too and took it a demonical step further - he wanted to completely destroy the capitalist society's superstructure, that's why he left no gap in his doctrine, stating that one can never realize what the "Good" is and must only criticize. He perfidiously incited waves of young and naive people to an ideology of perpetual destruction of society. And this is exactly what we are observing a few generations later. Subsequent waves of new mutations of counterculture, radical academics, young revolutionaries, SJW's and all other types of self-righteous parasites do nothing but criticize and criticize and criticize seeking a complete collapse. When carefully analyzing the events of unfolding of the Frankfurt School, this whole primitive critical theory is in fact just a fig leaf over Fromm's freudomarxism dervide from Reich's sexual revolution theory, which is the most destructive self-perpetuating tool of Marxists anticulture weaponry. But this is a whole other long story of Marxist feminism, heterosexual revolution, homosexual revolution, gender theory etc. etc. All tools of mass societal destruction.
Everything you wrote made sense up until about halfway, when you write: "Horkheimer was a Marxist revisionist too and took it a demonical step further..." If you are under the impression we are free, and capitalist exploitation of labor is fine with you, than we are not on the same page. But, if you recognize the abusiveness of capitalist exploitation, which is buoyed by patriarchy and deluded individualism, needs to change, then you understand the working class must wake up from its illusions and transform society away from allegiance to capital and toward allegiance to humanity. Adorno & Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment, especially the chapter on The Culture Industry is more relevant than ever. We are seeing the totalitarian nature of enlightenment thinking taking shape now with the unscientific state-corporate COVID-19 agenda, pushing experimental gene therapy drugs through coercive persuasion in the interest of ratcheting state control over informed consent and human rights. The goal is not to destroy society, but to undermine the power of capital, which places profits over people, profits over the environment, short terms profits over long-term human wellbeing and sustainability. If one doesn't see problems with the increasing power of corporations over humanity and nature, then such an individual must be suffering from cognitive dissonance.
@@philmessina476 Dialectic of Enlightenment is a critique of ideology not one of state power. The perspective isn’t political, the involved parties are not ‘agents’, and the focal point is the Spirit. For Adorno, human rights and ‘consent’ are products of bourgeois democracy. They contribute to the subjectivist mindset that upholds institutional power no matter how ‘false’ it appears against a more objective standard of judgement. The historical role of the state presupposes particular developments in the philosophical mind. Our engagements generate representations of social power which come to constrain us and establish limits for our project within a compass set by our thoughtful transcendence of all the possibilities of thought. This means that at the moment when freedom can be ‘realized’ it is spontaneously morphed into necessity. Adorno and Horkheimer are using the lens of culture and art to observe how society responds to these shifts in the Spirit. A political framing of these terms displaces the key insight. Any call to political action has completely dried up in the later work of Adorno. If anything, he merely points out the intransigence of epistemology. For a solution, you have to look towards Sartre who attempts to pull knowledge down to the level of action and situate the philosophical subject in the world once more. His interpretation of Marx is a viable way forward and does not accommodate the constant involutions inherent in a dialectical reasoning.
one of the tentacles of the Architects of WESTERN Decline
@skygardener7849 anything fruithfull from your mouth to "enrich" us?
"This sociology went beyond the critical theory of society concived by Marx in order to reflect reality more adequately. One point is very important. For Marx had ideal of a society of free human beings. He believed thet this capitalist society would necessarily have to be overcome by the solidarity spelled by the increasing immiseration of the working class. This idea is wrong. This society in which we live does not immiserate the workers but helps them to build a better life. And apart from that. Marx did not see that freedom and justice are dialectical concepts. The more freedom, the less justice and the more justice, the less freedom. The critical theory which I concived later is based on idea that one cannot determine, what is good, what a good, a free society would look like from within the society which we live in. We lack the means. But in our work we can bring up the negative aspects of this society, wich we want to change."
This translation is imprecise. I don't think he's ever saying "We lack the means. But in our work (...)"
the translate is wrong.He says dazu fehlt zum aber instead of we lack the means.it means we dont have that but
This guy was absolutely insane. How anyone could take him seriously is beyond me.
Thank you for uploading this. I am currently reading some of the works of Horkheimer to better understand Critical Theory in relation to philosophy and this definitely adds to that project.
apply some critical theory to the critical theory.
@@daveklebt7732 and what is your cup of critical theory? :D
Brainwashing in progress
@@Z_Victory_Z lol I know right. They’re being used as bait for a greater cause that they’re not even aware of. Once again, just another bunch of sheep being lead to the slaughterhouse
Adolf Hitler didn't fear the nuclear bomb as much as this guy.
thanks for the english subs
"The more freedom, the less justice, and the more justice, the less freedom."
@@Hernanpfl There's no mistake.
@@TheCrazyFinn so justice in society can be fully implemented only by enslaving via government or any upper organization?
@@twujstary1129 Ignore the video, ignore the topic at hand, read a comment, post a comment. *sigh*
@@TheCrazyFinn why are u dodging the question? i just want to understand what he meant by that, because it seems that u understand. imo he thinks that freedom of one will lead to unjust society and just society can be implemented only by restricting freedom of its members and example of the former is capitalistic society?
@@twujstary1129 It's not actually about justice, but about socialist concept of social justice. It's about using grievances and misfortunes to excuse the reduction of a population's freedom. I.e. "We must secure equal outcomes, therefor you don't get to make choices regarding your own life, because that would lead to disparate outcomes".
What’s the last word he says? Aufsprengen?
"I lack the means to objectively ascertain the facts of reality and I am absolutely 100% certain of this." Yah.
Exactly. Claiming an absolute to prove absolutes are non-existent is the crutch. The only objective source of moral truths must be external.
His apparent quote about " The revolution won't happen with guns, rather will................" I am trying to find that. Some have said he never said it and it is propaganda.
What is the source of the video?
"Max Horkheimer - Portrait eines Aufklärers" - Hessischer Rundfunk 1969 - you can find the whole docu on yt
People who haven’t accomplished anything telling others how to live.
In short: let's destroy everything and see what happens.
Sounds exactly where PeelAloser came out with "We need to pass this Bill in order to find out what's in it"
A lot of zealots in these comments. Anyone who has actually read Horkheimer knows he's about as anti-utopian as they come. His primary negation of most movements (both progressive and reactionary) prior was their tendency to fall into simple singular universal solutions, the exclusion of nuance and true critical thought being their downfall. I don't know how anyone could read something like "Eclipse of Reason" and walk away thinking he's a utopian thinker. That's why I suspect most haven't actually taken the time to read him because very few escape his critique, which is far closer to a sort of social pessimism with an eye towards optimism than any sort of typical utopian thought pattern.
My guess is most outrage commentors don't actually read though. Most likely relative illiterates, at least when it comes to more abstract theoretical works (likely ascribing to some form of modern pragmatism, intellectual enough to assert that it knows best without actually engaging with prominent ideas) drummed up in anger over the artificially created reactionary critical race theory "controversy". Most of these ideas aren't even taught in K-12, they can't be, they are college level courses as with most actual theory. It's too abstract for the stage of development of K-12 students.
Perhaps, but as stupid and dangerous as his uneducated detractors might be, uneducated followers of the orientation to society advocated for in this video are even more dangerous.
@@peterrogers565, why is that? What makes reading Horkheimer so dangerous?
He’s an unimpressive sophist
"Tear it all down" then. What could possibly go wrong?
Justice is collective virtue/Tugendhaftigkeit. A collective grown and cultural understanding of what is right and what is wrong inside a specific society not from top to bottom based on laws but from bottom to the top based on cultural values .
Justice in Germany is different from justice in China or justice in Saudi Arabia . Cause they all have different cultures and different values grown over hundreds of years. I recommend reading Heidegger being and time and laws of identity
Today we can see how Horkheimer was deluded by a brief period of 20-30 years after the war, and how far sighted Marx was to foresee more than a 100 years ahead of his time.
Marx was wrong with almost all he said. His only tangible input was the realization that socialism is utopian - yes, "utopian socialism" was a term was coined by Marx and published in 1848's Manifesto - and then bluntly inferring that such a utopia can only by sustained by terror and dictatorship. Lenin knew it very well and implemented this in Russia. Bolshevik revolution cost 10 million lives directly (comparable with the whole WW1) and decades of unimaginable suffering of multitude nations of the world that followed.
@@kojak8403 You claimed "Marx was wrong" but failed to provide any textual evidence for your claim.
You also failed to show where Marx endorsed "dictatorship".
You also failed to show what Lenin implemented from Marx's works.
@@user-ks1hp2pb5g You're not the smartest cookie in the jar, now are you. You have to really have close to zero knowledge about Marxism or be willfuly ignorant to state what you said.
ad a) one of biggest ever Marxists - Horkheimer says Marx was wrong and explains how in this very video at 0:45
ad b) Marx advocated dictatorship of proletaryat expressis verbis in his opus magnum, i.e. the Manifesto of Communist Party (aka in its early version as the Communist Confession of Faith)
ad c) Lenin implemented all points from the Manifesto, as discussed in 1902 "Shto delat" - in particular two crucial ones: narrow dedicated party in place of mass movement (against Luxemburgists) and state run terror instead of dissolution of state (against Bakunin et consortes)
@@kojak8403 Horkheimer didn't provide textual evidence, you donkey. I'm still waiting....
Again, you've failed to give textual evidence about what Marx meant in regards to the DOTP.
Where did marx advocate for Vanguardism? Again, failed to provide textual evidence. Again, where did Marx advocate state run terror? Again, no textual evidence.
Next time donkey, provide textual evidence for your claims.
@@user-ks1hp2pb5g Aren't you an entitled commie wannabe. You got more than you deserved already - and on a silver platter. Now move your sorry ass and do the job yourself instead of living off someone else's work.
He lost me at the long quotation from Marx. I had to suffer through many American professors who were crazy about critical theory.
It’s all ideological subversion my friend.. I’m glad you can see through this flawed bullshit
Professors are often jealous bitter people who are filled with their own self importance
And capitalism will only stay alive if it keeps pulling the worker out of immiseration. If capitalism cannot "deliver the goods" (and it can't pull the worker up now for various reasons) THEN capitalism is over.
listen or read closely, this theory is just an opinion. it is based on "seeminglyness" or ostensible reasoning. for all their attempts to dispel reason of the enlightenment, they simply substitute one form of reason for a worse and far less objective reason, based on as he himself states, from within his world view. those outside of the theory, therefore can criticize this "critical theory" for what it is - a weak attempt to shift the paradigm that all of western culture is negative. socialism applied by marxists, in every instance so far has resulted in both less freedom AND less justice. no culture in all human history is perfect. but the attempts to force the unicorn utopia of marxist is never possible, except at the point of a gun. If one wishes to enjoy marxism, go to venezuela. those other bastions of communism, China and Vietnam are rushing headlong to a market (capitalist) economy. this should tell you what the staunch practicing marixist think of marxism.
did you not listen to a word he said? He openly admits that Marx was wrong about capitalism's necessarily negative effects on people. He did not say there were no downsides, only that a better world can only be brought about through criticism of the existing world. I D E A L O G U E
Lol do u often post completely irrelevant comments on YT videos? Just curious
Have you read Horkheimer's texts?
Evil pos. Anything to bring upon misery to prove some utipia thats impossible. I truly hope hes seen this truth wherever his soul is at now.
If you think that Adorno and Horkheimer were utopian I suggest you actually read their works and revise your critique.
Turning everyone into rootless labor slaves is a utopia?
@@michaelsieger9133 yea they just suggested dissolving society with the acid of critical theory in order to build back better …not utopian at all!
…
PS youre a maroon
This dude hated America and it’s values. Rev. 2:9👊😎🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Its values, you mean. Surely you as a good American know the difference between "it's" and "its."
Oh wow, good old spell check is in order and I’m bitch slapped for it. Hope that made you feel good, I really do lol wow.
America has been a fascist society for people of color from day one. But the unchecked power of capital will extend the fascist abuses to all Americans over time. The USA has allowed corporations to grow to monstrous proportions, which led to the gilded age of the robber barons. Tepid attempts to break up the monopolists has failed. Industry gave rise to the intelligence state, the deep state (cf. Dr. Peter Dale Scott; Dr. Peter Phillips, et al.) And, in the 20th century, the power of capital smashed labor and any hope for democratic governance. The power of capital is now exceeding the power of nation states, as technocrats in institutions with global reach, such as the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, and the World Health Organization now supercede the power of individual nations. The fascist state-corporate COVID-19 agenda with its forced medical experimentation, with forced injections of gene therapy drugs, which do not prevent infection, nor prevent transmission of the virus it claims to prevent, this increasing authoritarianism was predicted by Adorno & Horkheimer in Dialectic of Enlightenment.
Have you read the book?
This theory is much more perfidious than it seems at the first glance. To fully understand Horkheimer one must realize the background. Marx divided society into base and superstructure. The base are the means of production, machines, land, factories etc. and superstructure is the culture, law, art, customs, morality, religion etc. Marx advocated a terrorist revolution with an indisputable dogma of a bloody dictatorship of proletaryat to take over societal production base by force and then forcefully transform the superstructure. This worked out in Russia in 1917 (pushing it into hell) and was then attempted a couple times in Europe (1918, 1920, 1923) and miserably failed each time. Classical Marxist recipe for communist revolution in the West did not work out, because the proletaryat did not back it, choosing instead to lift itself out of poverty by cooperating with capitalism (e.g. fordism). This is what Horkheimer means when stating that capitalism makes workers' lives better. Marxists despised the "treacherous" proletaryat for that collaboration and coined the notion of lack of "class consciousness". Marxist Antonio Gramsci advocated then for communists to focus on the superstructure instead and evolve the society into communism by taking over the culture first, and then the base will follow and full communism will be unrolled. He called it "cultural hegemony". Horkheimer was a Marxist revisionist too and took it a demonical step further - he wanted to completely destroy the capitalist society's superstructure, that's why he left no gap in his doctrine, stating that one can never realize what the "Good" is and must only criticize. He perfidiously incited waves of young and naive people to an ideology of perpetual destruction of society. And this is exactly what we are observing a few generations later. Subsequent waves of new mutations of counterculture, radical academics, young revolutionaries, SJW's and all other types of self-righteous parasites do nothing but criticize and criticize and criticize seeking a complete collapse.
When carefully analyzing the events of unfolding of the Frankfurt School, this whole primitive critical theory is in fact just a fig leaf over Fromm's freudomarxism dervide from Reich's sexual revolution theory, which is the most destructive self-perpetuating tool of Marxists anticulture weaponry. But this is a whole other long story of Marxist feminism, heterosexual revolution, homosexual revolution, gender theory etc. etc. All tools of mass societal destruction.
Everything you wrote made sense up until about halfway, when you write: "Horkheimer was a Marxist revisionist too and took it a demonical step further..."
If you are under the impression we are free, and capitalist exploitation of labor is fine with you, than we are not on the same page. But, if you recognize the abusiveness of capitalist exploitation, which is buoyed by patriarchy and deluded individualism, needs to change, then you understand the working class must wake up from its illusions and transform society away from allegiance to capital and toward allegiance to humanity.
Adorno & Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment, especially the chapter on The Culture Industry is more relevant than ever. We are seeing the totalitarian nature of enlightenment thinking taking shape now with the unscientific state-corporate COVID-19 agenda, pushing experimental gene therapy drugs through coercive persuasion in the interest of ratcheting state control over informed consent and human rights.
The goal is not to destroy society, but to undermine the power of capital, which places profits over people, profits over the environment, short terms profits over long-term human wellbeing and sustainability.
If one doesn't see problems with the increasing power of corporations over humanity and nature, then such an individual must be suffering from cognitive dissonance.
@@philmessina476 Dialectic of Enlightenment is a critique of ideology not one of state power. The perspective isn’t political, the involved parties are not ‘agents’, and the focal point is the Spirit.
For Adorno, human rights and ‘consent’ are products of bourgeois democracy. They contribute to the subjectivist mindset that upholds institutional power no matter how ‘false’ it appears against a more objective standard of judgement.
The historical role of the state presupposes particular developments in the philosophical mind. Our engagements generate representations of social power which come to constrain us and establish limits for our project within a compass set by our thoughtful transcendence of all the possibilities of thought. This means that at the moment when freedom can be ‘realized’ it is spontaneously morphed into necessity. Adorno and Horkheimer are using the lens of culture and art to observe how society responds to these shifts in the Spirit. A political framing of these terms displaces the key insight. Any call to political action has completely dried up in the later work of Adorno. If anything, he merely points out the intransigence of epistemology. For a solution, you have to look towards Sartre who attempts to pull knowledge down to the level of action and situate the philosophical subject in the world once more. His interpretation of Marx is a viable way forward and does not accommodate the constant involutions inherent in a dialectical reasoning.