Marx saw Capital as scientific while Adorno denies science’s authority

Evidence

As Michael Heinrich emphasises, Marx ‘places Capital among the “scientific attempts to revolutionise a science”’, and hence did not criticise ‘the so-called positive sciences, but rather believed himself to be in agreement with them’. This stands in contrast to the conception of science in Critical Theory, for which, according to Adorno, science is one among other societal forces of production and interwoven with the conditions of production. It itself is subject to that reification against which Critical Theory is arrayed. It cannot be the measure of Critical Theory, and Critical Theory cannot be science as Marx and Engels postulated it. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 985

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the broader revisionist claim that Adorno’s critique of Capital’s scientism is political-economy grounded, not mere cultural pessimism — the reading purpose of this book. — connects to: Hans Mayer accused Adorno of using Marxian categories without grounding them in Capital. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 452; Adorno read Marx’s stylistic failures as philosophical evidence against his theory — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 973; Adorno’s ‘use-value-in-itself’ assumption departs from and contradicts Marxian theory — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 230 (+2 more)
  • QUESTION: How exactly does Adorno’s ‘science as productive force’ differ from Marx’s own labor-process analysis of science? Worth chasing in Adorno’s texts.

Broader Connections