Ulysse, figure fondatrice de la raison instrumentale : mythe, ruse et domination de la nature selon Adorno et Horkheimer

Dans la Dialectique de la raison, #Adorno et #Horkheimer voient en Ulysse le symbole de la naissance de la #raison instrumentale : la ruse, la maîtrise technique et la distanciation d’avec le mythe marquent le passage vers une humanité qui cherche à dominer la nature… mais à quel prix ? #Philosophie #domination #RaisonInstrumentale #Rationalisme

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2025/06/14/ulysse-figure-fondatrice-de-la-raison-instrumentale-mythe-ruse-et-domination-de-la-nature-selon-adorno-et-horkheimer/

Randale, Bambule, Frankfurter Schule!

#Habermas #Horkheimer #Adorno

"Andererseits, meint Redecker, gehe jeglicher Faschismus, also auch der von Donald Trump und Konsorten verkörperte, aus dem Prinzip der Eigentumsordnung hervor."

/by #RonaldPohl
/via @derStandard

https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000312407/wie-eva-von-redecker-den-neuen-faschismus-in-ein altes-gewand-steckt

#Cologne #Adorno #Horkheimer

"Bourgeois economists are incapable of confronting the falsity of their understanding of competition: For the bourgeoisie, the fall of serfdom and mercantilism seemed to have abolished class distinctions, producing what they understand as the natural order of competition among free individuals. This order is supposed to be the correct way for human society to be organized, the realization of our innate propensity to truck and barter. In this vision of bourgeois society, every subject is both producer and consumer; there is no class. Anything that disrupts this picture is an intrusion of the non-economic into the sphere of the economic. To the extent that they are willing to acknowledge it, monopolization compels the bourgeoisie to admit that the unequal distribution of power continues to exist under their rule. Rather than accepting the falsity of their understanding of competition, however, the bourgeoisie understands monopolization solely as a regression to a prior mode of direct class rule. They admit that competition, as they understand it, no longer exists, but they believe that it once did, and that what exists today is no longer genuine competition.

Against this, Horkheimer understands pre-monopoly capitalism as characterized both by competition that reached all members of the population and by the unresolved problem of power. Whether by “birth or deceit, brutality or shrewdness, expertness in engineering machinery or human relations, by marriage or adulation,” there have always been groups that have managed the competitive processes within capitalism. Racketization is a reversion to more direct forms of domination, but these forms were always present, hidden behind the apparently rational market system, and this “was already clear to everyone except for the professors in the times of so-called liberalism.”"

https://ctwgwebsite.github.io/blog/2025/Competition/

#FrankfurtSchool #RacketTheory #CriticalTheory #PoliticalEconomy #Monopolies #Competition #Horkheimer #Capitalism

"Sourced from the Max-Horkheimer-Archiv (MHA), both fragments—“On The Relation Between Critical Intellectuals, the Proletariat, and the Communist Party” and “The Curse of Writing Today”—are located under the subheading “Miscellaneous Manuscripts (1946),”1 filed alongside three (of the four surviving) typescripts from Horkheimer’s “Conversations with Theodor W. Adorno,” recorded during the first two weeks of October 1946, about the planned sequel to Dialectic of Enlightenment. These Diskussionsprotokolle were first published posthumously in Volume 12 of Horkheimer’s Gesammelte Schriften under the title: “Rettung der Aufklärung. Diskussionen über eine geplante Schrift zur Dialektik.”2 In addition to these discussions, the last two fragments under the same subheading were also selected for publication in the same volume of Horkheimer’s GS: “Towards a Critique of the American Social Sciences” and “The Fate of Revolutionary Movements,” each of which is also dated “October 1946.”3 One possible motive for the omission of the fragments below from Horkheimer’s GS is difficulty in determining authorship. Despite a number of indications to the contrary in the text of the fragments themselves, the archivists (tentatively) attribute them to Adorno alone—a problematic approach the archivists seem to have adopted for several other unpublished fragments from the archive with indeterminate authorship as well.4 In terms of content, there are two grounds for rejecting this attribution."

https://ctwgwebsite.github.io/blog/2025/HA_Fragments_1946/

#CriticalTheory #Marxism #FrankfurtSchool #Adorno #Horkheimer