Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 19:06:00 -0600 (CST)
From: KERRY <MACDONAK-AT-Meena.CC.URegina.CA>
Subject: Re: HAB: Working Class and Habermas


Dear Norma Romm;

: Marxists. I am curious to see how they respond to David's last letter -
: about the need for a more communicative discourse around the issues. I

I have only recently joined this particular list and have not had a chance to
read his letter (apparently there are archives which I will have to review.) 
So, if I cover existing ground I ask for your forebearance.

: rereify the structures of power and control - as the route to a "better"
: world. This was Habermas's critique of a Marxism which did, in the last
: analysis,see power as rooted in economic (class) relationships. The
: solution to social ills then becomes necessarily a solution on the economic
: level ( a change in the mode of production). 

My understanding of Habermas's critique of Marxism grounded in two basic
"mistakes" which are interrelated:  that Marx failed to appreciate that their
are two basic types of action (communicative and purposive-rational) and that
he collapse philosophy with science.

The first critique arises out of the each of the action-systems have different
rationalities.  In this Habermas borrows from Horkheimer's "objective" and
"subjective" reason.  As with most 19thC theorists Marx valourized science
which is grounded in purposive-rational action.  This action type has a
rationality that is means-ends orientattion or empiricist focused.  It is
devoid of any normative element.  IOW, Marxism fails by focusing on how humans
do things rather than why we do them.  Marx's overall goal, human emancipation,
was laudable but by remaining at only the subjective reason level (focusing on
the purposive-rational) he was left with the problematic of "consciousness." 

Habermas, as in the same vein as the  Early Frankfurt School, sees that the
only way to effectively transend into a more democratic and just society is
through objective reason.  And as objective reason has normative components, it
can only be realized through language.  So, Habermas sees Marxism as providing
a technical understanding of society (along with Weber), however it is only
through communicative action that a substantive change in society can occur.

The second point is that Marx falls into this trap because he collapses
philosophy and science and thereby combinig "normal" and "adnormal" discourses. 
Habermas sees that the two need to be separated with each being able to
contribute to human knowledge but that each must be kept in its appropriate
place with science subserviant to philosophy.  In this way a true human
society, based upon our essential normative basis can occur.

:With Habermas, the solution is
:moved to a change on the level of our mode of discourse - the creation and
:strenghtening of the fabric of social discourse. It is here that decisions
:about ways of organising in a way that is socially just -  can be

This may seen nit-picking but ... it is not so much as our "level" but rather
the type of our "mode of discourse" (by this I presume you are alluding to the
two type of action-systems rationality, akin to the idea of "mode of
production.)  Our society has chosen, for various reasons, a
scientized-subjective/instrumental mode of discourse which is alienating and
that we must institute a mode of discourse which priviledges our innate
normative values.

:protest initiatives in society then become relevant to "the revolution"
:towards  more democratic forms of social existence.

As they are essentially grounded in concepts of social justice which use
objective reason or communicative rationality as there basis.

:reason should not be thus loaded. But he argues that the specific shift in
:economic structures as posited by Marxists, itself may become authoritarian
:- unless its own vision is  subjected to (heated) debate.  

And thereby changing the rationality from subjective to objective reasoning.

:Marxists cannot
:have the last word just because they presume they are speaking "for"the
:disadvantaged.

To be fair Marxists believe that their analysis is complete and from a
technical point of view they have much to offer.  But, Habermas's concern is
that they fail to appreciate that by simply focusing upon technical/scientific
approaches they remain embedded in subjective reason.

In closing, my comments were meant as additions and expansions upon what you
have offered.  And if I have been redundant again I ask for your forbearance. 
I only felt that some additions would aid in clarifying some points of your
argument.

in solidarity
kerry