{"id":152,"date":"2014-05-14T22:25:00","date_gmt":"2014-05-14T22:25:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152"},"modified":"2022-03-13T10:44:41","modified_gmt":"2022-03-13T10:44:41","slug":"horkheimers-attack-on-sohn-rethel-a-translation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152","title":{"rendered":"Horkheimer’s Attack on Sohn-Rethel – A Translation"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\"image\"<\/figure>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Introduction
<\/strong>
In a letter to Adorno, sent on 8 December 1936, Horkheimer mounted an attack on Sohn-Rethel, with whom Adorno had suggested collaborating. This argument is perhaps the most important and extensive critical early statement on Sohn-Rethel\u2019s work and to my knowledge has never previously been translated into English. The following is a translation of this attack, excerpted from the letter. In producing this translation I have attempted to render Horkheimer\u2019s prose as accurately and literally as possible, straying only into metaphor where it seemed that the writing itself demanded it, or where a direct translation into English would not do justice to the intellectual movements of the text. Horkheimer was rarely a great stylist, and was certainly never of the rank of Benjamin or Adorno. But his correspondence, particularly in the 1930s, contains many insights crucial to the early development of critical theory. Perhaps that which has been most discussed was his challenge to Walter Benjamin on the question of the closedness of history, but his other letters are often equally rich in their theoretical critique of those around the Frankfurt School, and have for the most part \u2013 due to lack of translation \u2013\u00a0 have gone entirely unnoticed by the Anglophone world. The letters of that generation of critical theorists, written as they were forced into exile by fascism, continued to exert a force over their intellectual work long after the end of the Second World War. This was shown to be the case not least for Alfred Sohn-Rethel, when in 1974 his exchange with Adorno nearly 40 years earlier (which prompted this response from Horkheimer) was published in the book Warenform und Denkform<\/em>. Today interest in Sohn-Rethel has achieved something of a second wind not just in the small boring world of Marxology, but also in the slightly bigger, more brightly lit, but often equally glib world of cultural theory. There the force of negativity has long since been traded for sloganeering on an ever-buoyant market. I hope that in translating this attack some of this sloganeering might be questioned. Horkheimer\u2019s letter may also still prove useful to readers of Sohn-Rethel\u2019s magnum opus Intellectual and Manual Labour<\/em> as it offers a distinctive critique of any attempt of closure of the system: between its (in Kantian terms) theoretical moment in the formal analysis of the exchange abstraction in Part 1 and its practical moment in the historical presentation of social synthesis in Part 2 of that book.<\/p>\n

The letter from which this passage is drawn exists in two scholarly editions: the Horkheimer Gesammelte Schriften Band XV<\/em>, ed. Gunzelin Schmid Noerr,<\/em> (Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer Verlag, 1995), pp. 763-775; and\u00a0Adorno-Horkheimer Briefwechsel Band I<\/em>, eds. Christoph G\u00f6dde and Henri Lonitz, (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2003), pp. 246-267. A further version of this entire extract is given in Theodor W. Adorno und Alfred Sohn-Rethel Briefwechsel<\/em>, ed. Christoph G\u00f6dde (M\u00fcnchen: text + kritik edition, 1991), pp. 38-41. There are minor textual differences in these versions, which I have marked in the footnotes, although why they occur is beyond me. They are marked in footnotes \u201cH<\/em>\u201d, \u201cA<\/em>\u201d and \u201cSR<\/em>\u201d respectively. The Adorno edition has edited the text into post-reform orthography, which with many misgivings I\u2019ve kept, as it is the latest<\/em> scholarly edition. I have consulted the two books that contain translated quotations from this material: Johm Abromeit\u2019s new biography Max Horkheimer and the Foundations of the Frankfurt School<\/em>, and Michael Robertson\u2019s translation of Rolf Wiggershaus\u2019 The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance<\/em>. I am not a translator by trade, and there may well be the occasional problem with this translation \u2013 I am presenting it here alongside the German text so if people think I need to make amendments they can tell me and I can fix it. Please do get in touch. I have also included a number of critical footnotes that offer some contextual information, critical commentary, or highlight moments where the original German is unclear. In the English version I have left a number of German words in parentheses where they may help in contextualising the writing in the German philosophical or critical theoretical tradition. If anyone wants to publish this properly and\/or wants to give me some money to write a proper critical introduction to it, let me know. The above portrait of Sohn-Rethel is by Kurt Schwitters, 1941.\u00a0<\/p>\n

English Version
<\/strong><\/p>\n

Unfortunately our opinions differ on Sohn-Rethel\u2019s work. Marcuse and I have read the outline of his project,[1]<\/a> admittedly only in part. However we are afraid that we have already arrived at a judgment about it. If he has given you a strong impression from his letter and in conversations (instead of through a recommendation) which cannot \u00a0be traced back to some completely different Sohn-Rethelian insight from that which comes to expression in the outline, then, despite your great intelligence, you have been easily won over.<\/p>\n

Insofar as we can find anything correct in the work, it is the theoretical view \u2013 which we have all shared for a long time \u2013 declaimed in an academically conceited and bombastic tone. Where for instance it is stated that \u201cthe solution to the problem of cognition\u201d will be undertaken \u201cthrough its achievement in praxis,\u201d it is either a bad formulation of the thought that theory is interwoven into praxis, and that one must win in praxis \u2013 that is in practical struggles \u2013 or it is simply prattle. The same applies to the sentence that immediately follows this: \u201cOn the contrary one sees that the formal problem of truth of cognition concerning its validity-character, the material problem of truth of consciousness in the sense of the historically developing essence of humans, and finally the practical problem of truth in the sense of the practical solution to the problem of Being of humans, who exist in an indivisible nexus with each other.\u201d This holy trinity of formal, material, and practical problems of truth is marked for a move ever after which it would be asserted that all of the problems and categories are identical with each other and arise out of each other. \u201cThe proof of the genesis of valid cognition out of social being is equivalent to the practical critique of the truth of the social being of humans from the measure of their essence.\u201d You certainly have no particular sympathy for such exaggeratedly idealist formulations. You remember those parts of Schelling\u2019s philosophy of identity, which Hegel described as the night in which all the cows are grey.[2]<\/a>\u00a0At least Schelling did not construct incessant boastful postulates, all of which would have to be fulfilled; instead the conviction in his metaphysical outlook was proclaimed as the identity of each and every.[3]<\/a> Sohn-Rethel\u2019s perpetual reassurance that any of these proofs would have to be achieved, after which any \u201cgeneses\u201d out of being, or out of history, or out of the developing being of humans, or out of the deepest root of the being of humans in their history, would be comparable with the problem of truth of consciousness, or the question of the validity of cognition, or with praxis of the society \u2013 this feels eternally tiresome and uninteresting. [4]<\/a><\/p>\n

It almost seems to me as if you were infected with Sohn-Rethel\u2019s mania of dialectical (or rather more undialectical) identification, becoming blind to the enormous difference between your own mode of thought and his. Your aim \u2013 that of proving the necessary and immanent relatedness of the idealist concept of the subject with the materialist one \u2013 may converge with Sohn-Rethel\u2019s postulate of a materialisation of the idealist concept of cognition, but under certain circumstances such formal concordances could even be established between us and our worst enemies. This question seems to me to be less one of such grand philosophical ambitions than of arriving at determinate formulations in particular. You must therefore look more closely at Sohn-Rethel\u2019s project: observe[5]<\/a> the connection of the particular propositions with each other, and look especially for some kind of indicator for the relation in which this whole work stands to historical reality, and how the author has latched on to that reality. You will not be able to ward off the feeling that stolen behind this dreary flow of sentences full of words heavy with content there lies such a great power of thought, that it could be history herself, or would otherwise belong to a Jaspers or some other professor. In every sentence of your Jazz essay[6]<\/a> our strained relation to reality comes closer to expression than in the weightiness of Sohn-Rethel\u2019s declaimed explanations. Your Kierkegaard book[7]<\/a> may also still carry within it the traces of the idealist mode of thinking that you renounce in that book; but in many places it is your vitriolic gaze, sharpened with hatred for the existing conditions, which is decisive. Yes, I have also learnt that your thought cannot be unified with the present objective spirit, where to me the correctness of thought appears doubtful. I reiterate: hold up Sohn-Rethel\u2019s work once again and stare at the view through its eyepiece; the formal concordance of your intentions will disappear behind the meaningful test of this instrument.<\/p>\n

Worst of all is the way that Marxian theory appears in the text. I would argue that Comtean or certainly Spencerian concepts could stand in place of the Marxian categories without anything changing.[8]<\/a> And furthermore, instead of economic categories arbitrary historiographical, biological, or psychological ones could be deployed. Nowhere is the characteristic irony of Marxian categories operative; nowhere does their critical function appear. Indeed, the consequences of their specifically economic content are never worked through. Marxian theory serves him only in that it makes it possible to exemplify his path to the \u201cconcrete\u201d as radical, although along this path the conception of the concrete and radical does not have to differ so much from that of Gestalt psychology[9]<\/a> or phenomenology.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe analysis of the value-form is adequate to assert: firstly, that the value-form itself is the form of reflection of the being of things with regard to their unity; and secondly, that within this analysis the existence of things [Dasein der Dinge] relates to humans in the same plane of being [Ebene des Seins] as that of existent subjects [existierendes Subjekt].\u201d The natural-scientific section of Hegel\u2019s Encyclopaedia<\/em> also contains sentences in which purely linguistically it could be remarked that the author is not at home with the object. But in Sohn-Rethel\u2019s assertions it is all too clear that the author is in real conflict with the analysis. Probably this sentence contains an undigested memory of the phenomenon of reification, retained by Sohn-Rethel from his reading of Luk\u00e1cs.[10]<\/a> This develops into the theory that social needs are themselves asserted, whether more or less badly, in value, through which something like the unity of the society is mediated. I would probably say that it is prohibited here, as in other places, to bring Sohn-Rethel\u2019s arguments into clear connection with economic theories because of the generality of their formulation: nothing is said of particular humans or particular periods; only the form of the being of things, the existence [Dasein] of things, \u201chumans as such\u201d and so forth are spoken of. The concept of exploitation is completely stripped of all of its aggressive content in a way not even Mannheim achieved; it becomes a mere placeholder for some other arbitrary conceptual relation. It somehow abides with ideology, with which it sits more easily.[11]<\/a> From Sohn-Rethel we learn that between the human poles of the relations of exploitation a reflection plays out, which raises \u201creal relations of genesis into purely interpersonal movements\u201d, and these are \u201cadhered to as immediately valid.\u201d With which demonic powers may these reflections otherwise always be granted, other than being made possible on the foundation of the magnificence and the depth of the philosophical formulations in which they are written, reverberating over the relations of exploitation and transfiguring them. The State, which is the \u201cresult of reflection\u201d of the primary social relations of exploitation, and \u201ctherefore this exploitation \u00a0is in the shape [Gestalt] of an essence [Wesen]\u201d, which \u201cagainst its genesis out of it where the negation of a genesis is completely sealed off, of an essence without a rear view, in which its genesis is left only as the self-entanglement in its own existence [Existenz] and the objective mediation of the relation of domination between mere people and its immediate validity affects only its claim to objectivity\u201d \u2013 this State would have already appointed the author of this magnificent sentence as its dignitary. I know that all of that can be understood if necessary, but as soon as one has more or less understood it one notices that what the author has taken trusted insights, dressing them up idealistically but while removing every trace of their vitriol. As I have said, I cannot arrive at a conclusive judgment with regard to everything, but I presume that these particular instances, of which I have until now been able to discover not a single exception, do not deceptively depict of the whole work.<\/p>\n

That I have the opinion of you that this case can finally rest on your greater experience, means that I will also respect if your opinion stands in opposition to mine. So I request primarily only that you in any case make no promises to Sohn-Rethel, before we have further notified you. Should you be in favour of commissioning him to compose a short and clear, eventually publishable essay about his foundational thoughts \u2013 for which we could pay on my behalf a thousand Francs \u2013 I would agree. However, we ought not to create any further hopes, because if the essay does not display wholly other qualities from the outline I will seriously attempt to dissuade from the thought of a collaboration with Sohn-Rethel.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/a> Sohn-Rethel had sent Adorno with an outline plan of his\u00a0 work in a letter composed in early November 1936. This is published in Theodor W. Adorno und Alfred Sohn-Rethel Briefwechsel<\/em>, pp. 13-31. Its transmission to Horkheimer is detailed in Adorno-Horkheimer Briefwechsel Band 1<\/em>, pp. 225-227.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a> Horkheimer here refers to paragraph 16 of the Phenomenology of Spirit<\/em>. There Hegel implicitly attacks Schelling\u2019s Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature<\/em>, \u201cNowadays we see all value ascribed to the universal Idea in this non-actual form, and the undoing of all distinct, determinate entities (or rather the hurling of them all into the abyss of vacuity without further development or any justification) is allowed to pass muster as the speculative mode of treatment. Dealing with something from the perspective of the Absolute consists merely in declaring that, although one has been speaking of it just now as something definite, yet in the Absolute, the A=A, there is nothing of the kind, for there all is one. To pit this single insight, that in the Absolute everything is the same, against the full body of articulated cognition, which at least seeks and demands such fulfilment, to palm off its Absolute as the night in which, as the saying goes, all cows are black – this is cognition naively reduced to vacuity.\u201d (trans. A.V. Miller, p.9). \u00a0It is perhaps significant that Horkheimer makes a mistake in referencing this image, for he writes of a night in which all the cows are grey<\/em>. The error, reminiscent of Beckett\u2019s opening stage direction for Endgame: \u201cbare interior \/ grey light\u201d, brings to mind another \u2013 and not disimilar \u2013 famous image from Hegel: at the closing of the preface to the Philosophy of Right<\/em> Hegel writes of how philosophy paints its grey on grey. That such a slippage between these two images was possible indicates something of the Frankfurt School critique of Hegel: that is that he does not escape the empty formalism of Schelling\u2019s philosophy of identity. Indeed it would be the claim to this unity of the Absolute in Hegel that would lead many of Adorno\u2019s later critiques of Hegel in his Hegel: Three Studies<\/em> and Negative Dialectics<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/a> There are a number of such statements in Schelling\u2019s Oeuvre. Perhaps the most famous is that given in the preface to his 1797 Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature<\/em>, where he writes: \u201cPhilosophy, accordingly, is nothing other than a natural history of our mind<\/em>. From now on all dogmatism is overturned from its foundations. We consider the system of our ideas, not in its being<\/em>, but in its becoming<\/em>. Philosophy becomes genetic<\/em>; that is, it allows the whole necessary series of our ideas to arise and take its course, as it were, before our eyes. From now on there is no longer any separation between experience and speculation. The system of Nature is at the same time the system of our mind, and only now, once the great synthesis has been accomplished, does our knowledge return to analysis.“ (trans. Harris and Heath, p. 30).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/a> The implication in Horkheimer\u2019s parody of Sohn-Rethel\u2019s sentence is that in his formalism Sohn-Rethel may have fallen into an existentialist position.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/a> The version given in H and S-R would read \u201cConsider\u2026\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/a> Adorno\u2019s article \u2018\u00dcber Jazz\u2019 was written 1936 and published under his pseudonym Hektor Rottweiler in the Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Sozialforschung<\/em>. A translation by Jamie Owen Daniel is given in Adorno on Music<\/em>, ed. by Richard Leppert (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002),pp. 470-494.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/a> Adorno\u2019s book Kierkegaard. Konstruktion des \u00c4sthetischen<\/em> was published in 1933. It is now Volume 2 of Theodor W. Adorno, Gesammelte Schriften<\/em>, 20 vols., ed. Tiedemann, Rolf, (Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1998). An English translation by Robert Hullot-Kentor exists as Kierkegaard: Contruction of the Aesthetic<\/em>, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8]<\/a> For a further elucidation of Horkheimer\u2019s critique of the pairing of Comte and Spencer see his essay \u2018Authority and the Family\u2019 trans. by Matthew O\u2019Connell, in Critical Theory<\/em> (New York: Continuum, 1972), p. 49.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]<\/a> In all published editions of the letter the Horkheimer uses the word \u201cgestalters<\/em>\u201d. Without access to the original typescript or manuscript I can only assume that this word, with its unusual English pluralisation and lack of capitalisation, refers to Gestalt psychologists, against whom both Horkheimer and Adorno had developed critiques.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[10]<\/a> Horkheimer refers to Luk\u00e1cs\u2019 1923 book History and Class Consciousness<\/em>, particularly its central essay \u2018Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat\u2019. \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[11]<\/a> Sentence unclear in the original German.\u00a0<\/p>\n

German Version<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00dcber die Arbeit Sohn-Rethels gehen unsere Meinungen leider auseinander. Marcuse und ich haben den Entwurf, freilich nur zum Teil, gelesen, trauen uns jedoch immerhin schon ein Urteil dar\u00fcber zu. Wenn der starke Eindruck, den Sie von seinem anstelle eines Gutachtens geschriebenen Brief\u00a0 und von der Aussprache mit ihm gewonnen haben, nicht auf ganz andere Sohn-Rethelsche Einsichten zur\u00fcckgeht, als auf diejenigen, die im Entwurf zum Ausdruck kommen, dann haben Sie sich durch seine grosse Intelligenz einfach bestechen lassen.<\/p>\n

Soweit wir etwas Richtiges in der Arbeit finden k\u00f6nnen, sind es theoretische Ansichten, die uns allen seit langem gemeinsam sind, vorgetragen in einer akademisch eitlen und bombastischen Sprache. Wenn etwa gesagt wird, dass \u00bbdie L\u00f6sung des Erkenntnisproblems \u2026 zur Gewinnung der Praxis\u00ab unternommen werde, so ist das entweder eine schlechte Formulierung f\u00fcr den Gedanken, dass die Theorie in die Praxis verflochten ist und dass man die Praxis, das heisst die praktischen K\u00e4mpfe, gewinnen muss, oder es ist einfach Gerede. \u00c4hnlich steht es mit dem gleich darauf folgenden Satz: \u00bbMan sieht aber, dass das formale Wahrheitsproblem der Erkenntnis hinsichtlich ihres Geltungscharakter, das materiale Wahrheitsproblem des Bewusstseins im Sinn der geschichtlichen Wesensentwicklung der Menschen und endlich das praktische Wahrheitsproblem im Sinn der praktischen L\u00f6sung der eigenen Seinsprobleme der Menschen in einem ganz untrennbaren Zusammenhang miteinander stehen.\u00ab Diese heilige Dreieinigkeit von formalem, materialem, und praktischem Wahrheitsproblem ist kennzeichnend f\u00fcr ein Verfahren, in dem immer wieder behauptet wird, dass alle Probleme und Kategorien miteinander identisch seien und auseinander hervorgehen. \u00bbDer Nachweis der Genesis der geltenden Erkenntnis aus dem gesellschaftlichen Sein ist gleichbedeutend mit der praktischen Wahrheitskritik des gesellschaftlichen Seins der Menschen nach den Massen ihres Wesens.\u00ab Sie selbst haben bestimmt f\u00fcr solche \u00fcbertrieben idealistischen Formulierungen keine besondere Sympathie. Sie erinnern an jene Partien aus Schellings Identit\u00e4tsphilosophie, auf die sich das Wort Hegels von der Nacht, in der alle K\u00fche grau sind, bezieht. Nur hat Schelling nicht unaufh\u00f6rlich grosssprechrische Postulate aufgestellt, was alles geleistet werden m\u00fcsse, sondern seine \u00dcberzeugung von der Identit\u00e4t alles und jedes als seine metaphysische Anschauung ausgesprochen. Sohn-Rethels fortw\u00e4hrende Versicherung, dass irgendwelche Nachweise geleistet werden m\u00fcssten,[1]<\/a> nach denen irgenwelche \u201cGenesen\u201d aus dem Sein oder aus der Geschichte oder aus der Seinsentwicklung des Menschen oder aus der tiefsten Wurzel des Seins des Menschen in seiner Geschichte gleichbedeutend seien mit dem Wahrheitsproblem des Bewusstseins oder der Geltungsfrage der Erkenntnis oder mit der Praxis der Gesellschaft \u2013 empfinde ich als undendlich erm\u00fcdend und uninteressant.<\/p>\n

Fast scheint es mir so, als seien Sie, durch Sohn-Rethels Manie der dialektischen oder vielmehr undialektischen Identifikation angsteckt, gegen den ungeheuren Unterschied Ihrer eigenen Denkart und seiner blind geworden. Ihre Absicht, die notwendige und immanente Bezogenheit des idealistischen Subjektbegriffs auf Materielles nachzuweisen, mag mit Sohn-Rethels Postulat einer Materialisierung des idealistischen Erkenntnisbegriffs zusammentreffen, aber solche formalen \u00dcbereinstimmungen k\u00f6nnen Sie unter Umst\u00e4nden auch zwischen uns und unseren \u00e4rgsten Gegnern feststellen. Es scheint mir weniger auf diese grossen philosophischen Zielsetzungen als auf die bestimmten Formulierungen im einzelnen anzukommen. Sehen Sie aber einmal diesen Sohn-Rethelschen Entwurf daraufhin etwas n\u00e4her an; beobachten Sie auch die Verbindung der einzelnen S\u00e4tze miteinander und suchen Sie vor allem nach irgendeinem Anhaltspunkt daf\u00fcr, in welcher Beziehung diese ganze Arbeit zur geschichtlichen Realit\u00e4t steht und was der Autor von dieser kapiert hat. Sie werden sich des Gef\u00fchls nicht erwehren k\u00f6nnen, dass hinter diesem trostlosen Ablauf von S\u00e4tzen mit inhaltsschweren Worten zwar eine gro\u00dfe Denkkraft steckt, dass diese aber zur Geschichte selbst, wie sie ist, auch nicht viel anders steht als irgendein Jaspers oder sonst ein Professor. In jedem Satz Ihres Jazzaufsatzes kommt unser gespanntes Verh\u00e4ltnis zur Realit\u00e4t klarer zum Ausdruck als in den mit Gewichtigkeit vorgetragenen Erkl\u00e4rungen Sohn-Rethels. Mag Ihre Kierkegaard-Arbeit auch noch die Spuren der idealistischen Denkweise an sich tragen, von der Sie sich mit jenem Buch lossagten, so macht sich doch an vielen Stellen Ihr vom Ha\u00df gesch\u00e4rfter Blick auf das Bestehende geltend, ja, ich habe die Unvereinbarkeit Ihrer Gedanken mit dem vorhandenen objektiven Geist auch dort erfahren, wo mir die Richtigkeit der Gedanken als zweifelhaft erschien. Ich wiederhole: sehen Sie unter diesem Gesichtspunkt den Entwurf noch einmal durch! Die formale \u00dcbereinstimmung in der Intention wird hinter der vielsagenden Probe ihrer Durchf\u00fchrung verschwinden.<\/p>\n

Das Schlimmste ist die Art, wie die Marxsche Theorie darin auftritt. Ich behaupte, dass anstelle der Marxschen Kategorien Comtesche, sicher aber Spencersche Begriffe stehen k\u00f6nnten, ohne dass irgendetwas ver\u00e4ndert w\u00e4re. Ja, noch mehr! Anstatt \u00f6konomischer Kategorien k\u00f6nnen beliebige geschichtsphilosophische, biologische oder psychologische eingesetzt werden. Nirgends wird die eigent\u00fcmliche Ironie der Marxschen Kategorien wirksam, nirgends erscheint ihre kritische Funktion, ja, es werden nicht einmal Konsequenzen aus ihrem spezifischen \u00f6konomischen Gehalt gezogen. Die Marxsche Theorie dient ihm nur dazu, seinen Zug zum \u00bbKonkreten\u00ab m\u00f6glichst radikal zu exemplifizieren, wobei dies konkret und radikal gar nicht so sehr viel anders gemeint sein muss als bei den gestalters oder der Ph\u00e4nomenologie.<\/p>\n

\u00bbEs gen\u00fcge aus der Analyse der Wertform die Aussage, da\u00df erstens die Wertform selbst die Reflexionsform des Seins der Dinge hinsichtlich seiner Einheit ist und da\u00df zweitens in ihr das Desein der Dinge auf den Menschen als in der gleichen Ebene des Seins wie sie existierendes Subjekt bezogen ist.\u00ab[2]<\/a> Auch Hegels Encyclop\u00e4die[3]<\/a> enth\u00e4lt im naturwissenschaftlichen Teil S\u00e4tze, denen man es rein sprachlich anmerkt, dass er mit dem Gegenstand nicht vertraut ist. Aber dieser Aussage merkt man allzu deutlich an, dass der Autor mit jener Analyse auf dem Kriegsfuss steht. Wahrscheinlich enth\u00e4lt der Satz eine unverdaute Erinnerung an das Ph\u00e4nomen der Verdinglichung, die Sohn-Rethel aus der Lekt\u00fcre von Luk\u00e1cs geblieben ist, und weiter an die Theorie, dass im Wert sich die gesellschaftlichen Bed\u00fcrfnisse, wenn auch mehr oder minder schlecht, durchsetzen, wodurch so etwas wie die Einheit der Gesellschaft vermittelt wird. Wahrscheinlich sage ich, denn die Allgemeinheit der Formulierung, mit der nicht etwa von bestimmten Menschen in bestimmten Perioden, sondern von der Form des Seins der Dinge, vom Dasein der Dinge, von \u00bbdem\u00ab Menschen und so fort gesprochen wird, verbietet es hier wie an anderen Stellen, Sohn-Rethels Behauptungen mit \u00f6konomischen Theorien in klaren Zusammenhang zu bringen. Den Begriff der Ausbeutung alles[4]<\/a> aggressiven Inhalts v\u00f6llig zu entkleiden, und zum blossen Platzhalter f\u00fcr irgendeinen beliebigen anderen Beziehungsbegriff zu machen, hat nicht einmal Mannheim fertiggebracht. Er hielt sich immerhin an die Ideologie, mit der es leichter war. Von Sohn-Rethel erfahren wir, dass zwischen den menschlichen Polen des Ausbeutungsverh\u00e4ltnisses eine Reflexion spielt, welche die \u00bbRealverh\u00e4ltnisse der Genesis \u2026 in die rein zwischenmenschliche Beziehung\u00ab hebt und sie dort \u00bbals unmittelbare Geltung festh\u00e4lt\u00ab. Mit welchen d\u00e4monischen Kr\u00e4ften diese Reflexion sonst auch immer begabt sein mag, sie vermag, lediglich auf Grund der Grossartigkeit und Tiefe der philosophischen Formulierungen, mit denen sie beschrieben wird, auf das Ausbeutungsverh\u00e4ltnis zur\u00fcckzustrahlen und es zu verkl\u00e4ren. Der Staat, der das \u00bbReflexionsresultat\u00ab des prim\u00e4ren gesellschaftlichen Ausbeutungsverh\u00e4ltnisses und \u00bbdeshalb diese Ausbeutung in Gestalt eines Wesens\u00ab ist, \u00bbdas gegen seine Genesis aus ihr mit der Negation einer Genesis seiner \u00fcberhaupt verschlossen ist, eines Wesens ohne R\u00fcckenansicht, in dem seine Genesis nur noch als die Selbstverfangenheit in die eigene Existenz und die sachliche Vermittlung der Herrschaftsbeziehung zwischen blossen Menschen nur noch im Objektivit\u00e4tsanspruch ihrer unmittelbaren Geltung vorkommt\u00ab \u2013 dieser Staat m\u00fcsste den Autor dieses grossartigen Satzes schon deshalb zu seinem W\u00fcrdentr\u00e4ger machen. Ich wei\u00df, das[s] alles l\u00e4sst sich zur Not verstehen, aber sobald man es \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s verstanden hat, merkt man, dass das, was der Autor hier mit vertrauten Erkenntnissen getan hat, ihre idealistische Verbr\u00e4mung und nicht etwa ihre Sch\u00e4rfung ist. Ich kann, wie gesagt, \u00fcber das ganze kein abschliessendes Urteil f\u00e4llen, vermute aber, dass die Einzelheiten, von denen ich bis jetzt nicht eine einzige Ausnahme zu entdenken vermochte, keine irref\u00fchrenden Zeichen f\u00fcr die Arbeit sind.<\/p>\n

Da ich eine Meinung von Ihnen, die sich schliesslich in diesem Fall dazu noch auf gr\u00f6ssere Erfahrung st\u00fctzt, auch dann respektiere, wenn sie der meinigen entgegengesetzt ist, so bitte ich Sie zun\u00e4chst nur darum, Sohn-Rethel jedenfalls keine Versprechungen zu machen, ehe wir uns nicht weiter verst\u00e4ndigt haben. Sollten Sie daf\u00fcr sein, ihm den Auftrag zu erteilen, einen kurzen und klaren, eventuell druckbaren Aufsatz \u00fcber seinen Grundgedanken anzufertigen, f\u00fcr den wir ihm meinethalben tausend Franken bezahlen k\u00f6nnten, so bin ich damit einverstanden. Irgendwelche weiteren Hoffnungen sollten wir ihm jedoch nicht machen, denn wenn der Aufsatz nicht ganz andere Qualit\u00e4ten zeigt als der Entwurf, werde ich ernstlich versuchen, Sie von dem Gedanken an eine Zusammenarbeit mit Sohn-Rethel abzubringen.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/a> A<\/em>: \u201cm\u00fcssten\u201d; SR<\/em> und H<\/em>: \u201cm\u00fcssen\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a> SR<\/em>: \u201cals in der gleichen Ebene des Seins wie [die das] existierenden Subjekts bezogen ist.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/a> H<\/em> und SR<\/em>: \u201cEnzyklop\u00e4die\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/a> H<\/em> und SR<\/em> : \u201calles\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IntroductionIn a letter to Adorno, sent on 8 December 1936, Horkheimer mounted an attack on Sohn-Rethel, with whom Adorno had suggested collaborating. This argument is perhaps the most important and extensive critical early statement on Sohn-Rethel\u2019s work and to my knowledge has never previously been translated into English. The following is a translation of this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_eb_attr":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-translations"],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":6}},"yoast_head":"\nHorkheimer's Attack on Sohn-Rethel - A Translation - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Horkheimer's Attack on Sohn-Rethel - A Translation - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"IntroductionIn a letter to Adorno, sent on 8 December 1936, Horkheimer mounted an attack on Sohn-Rethel, with whom Adorno had suggested collaborating. This argument is perhaps the most important and extensive critical early statement on Sohn-Rethel\u2019s work and to my knowledge has never previously been translated into English. The following is a translation of this […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jbardrosenberg\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jbardrosenberg\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-05-14T22:25:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-03-13T10:44:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/64.media.tumblr.com\/4e11b745c3ab6e137ef465418a868a64\/tumblr_inline_pk22cbNOpA1ryk1it_540.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@http:\/\/twitter.com\/prolapsarian\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@prolapsarian\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7\"},\"headline\":\"Horkheimer’s Attack on Sohn-Rethel – A Translation\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-05-14T22:25:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-03-13T10:44:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152\"},\"wordCount\":4515,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/64.media.tumblr.com\\\/4e11b745c3ab6e137ef465418a868a64\\\/tumblr_inline_pk22cbNOpA1ryk1it_540.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Translations\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152\",\"name\":\"Horkheimer's Attack on Sohn-Rethel - A Translation - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/64.media.tumblr.com\\\/4e11b745c3ab6e137ef465418a868a64\\\/tumblr_inline_pk22cbNOpA1ryk1it_540.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-05-14T22:25:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-03-13T10:44:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/64.media.tumblr.com\\\/4e11b745c3ab6e137ef465418a868a64\\\/tumblr_inline_pk22cbNOpA1ryk1it_540.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/64.media.tumblr.com\\\/4e11b745c3ab6e137ef465418a868a64\\\/tumblr_inline_pk22cbNOpA1ryk1it_540.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=152#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Horkheimer’s Attack on Sohn-Rethel – A Translation\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\",\"description\":\"Babbler, Scrawler, Dialectician\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":[\"Person\",\"Organization\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7\",\"name\":\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1\",\"width\":300,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\"},\"logo\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\",\"http:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/jbardrosenberg\",\"http:\\\/\\\/instagram.com\\\/prolapsarian\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/http:\\\/\\\/twitter.com\\\/prolapsarian\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Horkheimer's Attack on Sohn-Rethel - A Translation - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Horkheimer's Attack on Sohn-Rethel - A Translation - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","og_description":"IntroductionIn a letter to Adorno, sent on 8 December 1936, Horkheimer mounted an attack on Sohn-Rethel, with whom Adorno had suggested collaborating. This argument is perhaps the most important and extensive critical early statement on Sohn-Rethel\u2019s work and to my knowledge has never previously been translated into English. The following is a translation of this […]","og_url":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152","og_site_name":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","article_publisher":"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jbardrosenberg","article_author":"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jbardrosenberg","article_published_time":"2014-05-14T22:25:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-03-13T10:44:41+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/64.media.tumblr.com\/4e11b745c3ab6e137ef465418a868a64\/tumblr_inline_pk22cbNOpA1ryk1it_540.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@http:\/\/twitter.com\/prolapsarian","twitter_site":"@prolapsarian","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152"},"author":{"name":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#\/schema\/person\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7"},"headline":"Horkheimer’s Attack on Sohn-Rethel – A Translation","datePublished":"2014-05-14T22:25:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-13T10:44:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152"},"wordCount":4515,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#\/schema\/person\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/64.media.tumblr.com\/4e11b745c3ab6e137ef465418a868a64\/tumblr_inline_pk22cbNOpA1ryk1it_540.jpg","articleSection":["Translations"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152","url":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152","name":"Horkheimer's Attack on Sohn-Rethel - A Translation - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/64.media.tumblr.com\/4e11b745c3ab6e137ef465418a868a64\/tumblr_inline_pk22cbNOpA1ryk1it_540.jpg","datePublished":"2014-05-14T22:25:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-13T10:44:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/64.media.tumblr.com\/4e11b745c3ab6e137ef465418a868a64\/tumblr_inline_pk22cbNOpA1ryk1it_540.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/64.media.tumblr.com\/4e11b745c3ab6e137ef465418a868a64\/tumblr_inline_pk22cbNOpA1ryk1it_540.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=152#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Horkheimer’s Attack on Sohn-Rethel – A Translation"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/","name":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","description":"Babbler, Scrawler, Dialectician","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#\/schema\/person\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":["Person","Organization"],"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#\/schema\/person\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7","name":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jacobbr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jacobbr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jacobbr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1","width":300,"height":400,"caption":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg"},"logo":{"@id":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jacobbr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/jacobbr.com","http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jbardrosenberg","http:\/\/instagram.com\/prolapsarian","https:\/\/x.com\/http:\/\/twitter.com\/prolapsarian"],"url":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?author=1"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=152"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":605,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152\/revisions\/605"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}