Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 10:46:28 +0800
From: rgeeland-AT-cc.curtin.edu.au (David Geelan)
Subject: Re: HAB: Working Class Habermas


OH DEAR!!

I intended to be provocative, and it appears I succeeded. Craig Howley
(with whom the dialogue began and continues) was the only one to take my
contribution in the spirit in which I intended it, and say something to
actually advance the debate.

Rather than quote and rebutt paragraph by paragraph the varying attacks on
my scholarship, perception and perhaps even right to post, I'll try to
address the general concerns. Again, my hope is to promote passionate but
not pejorative debate of some fascinating issues.

1. Do people recognise rhetorical language? Of course I do not consider
Australia a 'working class paradise' or even a 'classless society'. My
point, which I believe I conveyed reasonably clearly, was that I, and most
Australians, do not generally think in terms of class distinctions. This
does not mean that such distinctions do not exist, simply that we use
different language to articulate our understanding of the world. That
discussion was in response to Craig's earlier comments about the decline in
size of the proletariat - I was essentially asking what language (First
sentence: "How are class differences described these days?") would be
appropriate to describe Marx's ideas if the posited extinction of a
specific 'working class' were to occur.

1a. The point that Australia's comfort is bought at the cost of
exploitation elsewhere is well taken. My purpose was neither to extol
Australia's virtues or to minimise the enormous work of emancipation which
remains to be done in the world. It was to ask the terminology and
methodology questions: is the best mechanism for addressing these
mechanisms the class struggle as envisaged by Marx in a totally different
context 120 years ago? If not, then how can we best keep Marx's project
alive? Because that was my intention, however disguised: to show respect
for Karl Marx's vision, not by entombing it in a language created in an
entirely different socio-economic context, but by re-vitalising it with new
concepts powerful enough for a new and more complex world. This too, I
think, is Habermas' project. I do not see them in opposition, but working
together for the betterment of humanity.

2. Perhaps my provocation was worth the personal abuse it invited: the
chance of this list 'remain[ing] silent in sectarian isolation' appears to
have been averted, even if it is instead the site for a flood of Marxist
venom. OK, now that that's off my chest, I'll attempt to continue the
argument in the more moderate and 'communicative' mode which is more likely
to lead to shared understanding.

3. I did not intend to be condescending about trade unions: my point was
that it would be ironic if the class struggle became the domain of
well-paid, university educated people who have 'jobs of direction' (in
union offices and universities (far be it from me to suggest that Adam
Bandt and Bob Dick might see themsleves here!)), if the proletariat itself
is advancing in personal and economic emancipation through other
mechanisms. No one seems to have taken up my initial point that EVERYONE
needs to be emancipated. Of course an economic system in which capital was
more equitably distributed would be more powerful for physical
emancipation. But perhaps the appropriate mechanism for that is not
relatively unreflective opposition to 'the bosses', but a process of
de-reifying structures of power and control, for both bosses and workers.

4. Thanks for the clarification on Marx and materialism Craig: the idea of
economy viewed as a web of social relationships seems to me much more
powerful, and addresses the concern I raised about materialism. This is the
point I was trying to raise about my own knowledge of Marx: I openly
admitted that my knowledge was of other people's later
over-simplifications. Perhaps had I had the advantage of the understanding
you've shared here, I wouldn't have got myself in hot water. (But I suspect
those on the attack DO see Marxism in material terms.)


Footnote: Craig, Habermas must read English, because McCarthy thanks him
for reading the translation of "Theory of Communicative Action" and
offering suggestions to improve its clarity in English. Thought I'd note
this before we get a flood of pedants (like me!) letting us know.

Thanks to all of you for your responses. I stand corrected for not making
it clear enough when I was being hyperbolic and rhetorical, but am
unrepentant of my view that Habermas' reconstruction of Marx's social
project IS more powerful, simply because it is intentionally more
responsive to 'late capitalism'.

Regards, David