Reviews for La idea Zuche

The average rating for La idea Zuche based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-09-23 00:00:00 Mark Gunderson كتاب ممتع ودسم لدرجة كبيرة ... فصل جيل ديلوز وفيليكس جواتاري وكذا فصل إرنستو لاكلاو وشانتال موف حاجة عظيمة واجمل مدخل ممكن للمشروعين دول، بإعتبارهم اهم اطروحات ومشاريع ما بعد الماركسية .. فضلا عن اطروحة كورنيليوس كارستورياديس ومحاولة دمج باكونين في الماركسية كرد على الشمولية السوفيتية البيروقراطية العسكرية

Review # 2 was written on 2009-05-08 00:00:00 Jeff Kridler I REALLY wanted to like this book. Being one of maybe four fans of Georg Lukács, and there being maybe four books about Lukács in existence, I was craving some insight into his masterpiece History and Class Consciousness, and some kind of discussion of his never discussed The Ontology of Social Being (published posthumously). Despite the fact that Rockmore is a crystal clear writer - which is rare for someone who studies German Idealism with his intensity - the book seemed completely directionless. The first 50 or so pages are about Marx and then Engels poor creation of Marxism. While I completely agree with every idea expressed in these chapters, they are completely superfluous. 1) People buying these books (i.e., nuanced discussions of esoteric Marxists) are already privy to the conversation regarding Engels and his perversion of Marxism. 2) It adds almost nothing to the conversation about Lukács in general. Lukács offered an ingenious perspective to Marxism, be it from the Engelsian perversion, or from Marx's works alone, this back story is superfluous to the ingenuity of Lukács. The actual conversation about Lukács is so loaded with Rockmore's personal theory, that one finds it hard to belabor the rest of the book. Rockmore is adamant that Lukács is sneaking in neo-Kantianism, specifically the theories of Emil Lask. Even if he is, one can comprehend Lukács book without knowing these back stories. And presenting the philosophy of Lukács as these opaque back stories that Rockmore has figured out, greatly detracts from actually understanding what Lukács was saying; by focusing far too much on what Fichte, and Lask were saying. Instead of analyzing a line by Lukács that says X, we get "Lukács is really responding to X, which goes back to a philosophical debate regarding Y, Z, P, and Q, which was addressed by A, B, C, D," inevitably leading to a discourse that while pretending to focus on Lukács, leaves Lukas's views entirely absent from the discussion. Eventually I just stopped reading the book. Maybe it picks up after page 150, but I bought the book concerned about Lukács, and not Fichte nor Lask.