The book was written between 1957 and i960 under Horkheimer and Adorno as a doctoral dissertation in philosophy. It was one of die first attempts to draw on the politico-econom ic writings o f m iddle-period and mature m arx. The book opposed the widespread w estern european, often neo-Existendalist, tendency to reduce m arx's thought to an unhistorical 'an
The book was written between 1957 and i960 under Horkheimer and Adorno as a doctoral dissertation in philosophy. It was one of die first attempts to draw on the politico-econom ic writings o f m iddle-period and mature m arx. The book opposed the widespread w estern european, often neo-Existendalist, tendency to reduce m arx's thought to an unhistorical 'an
The book was written between 1957 and i960 under Horkheimer and Adorno as a doctoral dissertation in philosophy. It was one of die first attempts to draw on the politico-econom ic writings o f m iddle-period and mature m arx. The book opposed the widespread w estern european, often neo-Existendalist, tendency to reduce m arx's thought to an unhistorical 'an
T h is book was written between 1957 and i960 under
Horkheimer and Adorno as a doctoral dissertation in philosophy and was published for the first time iii 1962. Every page is. im pregnated with the influence o f critical theory as developed by the Frankfurt School since the early 1930s. C ritical theory* was o f course a specific inter pretation o f M arx, formulated under unique conditions, and was eventually itself bound to become the object o f critical and many-sided debates. In the course o f these debates I too found it necessary to clarify my position on a number o f issues, and there is no doubt that today I should adopt a somewhat different approach to my subject. How ever, other urgent commitments make it impossible at present to revise or extend the book as much as I would like to, and I shall therefore sim ply indicate, however briefly, a few points to which only a future revised edition and further study can do proper justice. It w ill help the English reader to understand this book i f from the outset he bears in mind its polemical aspect. It was one o f die first attempts to draw on the politico-econom ic writings o f m iddle-period and mature M arx, in particular Capital and the so-called Roheatw urP o f the years 1857-59 (later published as Grundrtssc der K ritik der politisckea Okonomie), for a philosophical interpretation o f M arxs life-work. In doing this, the book opposed the widespread W estern European, often neo-Existendalist, tendency o f the 19505 to reduce M arxs thought to an unhistorical anthro pology centred on the alienation problem atic o f the early writings (in particular the P are M anuscripts o f 1844) and sought to point out the philosophical content (or at least