Hiding the foundation problem

Even with these far-reaching changes, Habermas does not deny the legitimacy and necessity of the social-critical programme initiated by Horkheimer. He does, however, offer two serious arguments to refute the view that the positionlinkingcritical theory and Marx's conception - that the openness of the historical alternative to emancipation would be contingent on the abolition of the existing socio-economic system - would still be sustainable under conditions of state-regulated capitalism (an alternative name for late capitalism), either along the original Marxian or the further traces of the concept ofTraditional and Critical theory.On the one hand, he writes, the conviction in the near feasibility of a rational society has not only been shaken, but invalidated. This development is the consequence of a process in which 'utopian energies' have been exhausted. On the other hand, and on this basis, he believes that a social and theoretical critique of late capitalism can only be validly developed on the basis of a systematic analysis of the more recent twentieth-century consequences and dynamics of the structural transformation that has taken place. As far as the Marxian tradition and constructive linkage are concerned, Habermas sees the need to pay analytical attention first and foremost to the integrative achievements of capitalism - systemic and social integration - and to explore in detail their stabilising effects, their contradictions and the mechanisms that generate new contradictions and crises. Only on this basis will it be possible to undertake a systematic reconstruction and rethinking of Marx's conception of history and society. As a first step, he takes as a starting point a critical examination of Marx's"theory of crisis" - postponing, at least for the time being, a comprehensive characterisation of Marx's conception43-while at the same time indicating the need for a thorough analysis of the new institutional-political mechanisms of"crisis management".44In any case, his focus on the systemic changes that have taken place since the nineteenth century indicates that Habermas takes possession of Marx's social theoretical legacy with a critical intent to go deeper into realities than the theorists of the first generation of critical theory - Horkheimer in particular, of course. At the same time, Habermas's analytical strategy, which continues the critical theoretical tradition but gradually moves away from his predecessors, becomes increasingly clear.

Comment

Building on his systematic positionin the theory of communicative action, Habermas characterizes Horkheimer's (and to some extent Adorno's) conception as leading, in connection with Marx's concept of the dialectic of living and dead labour, to a brief definition of the concept of action on the one hand, and to a reduction of rationality organized as a system to instrumental rationality on the other.45The basis of this critique is provided by two - contradictory or at least incoherently linked - pillars of Habermasian theory, which are the theoretical-philosophical background of (systems) functionalism and the hermeneutic tradition.46The socio-polit