Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gary E Davis <gedavis1-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: HAB: re: Progress After Critical Theory


John Wilson, in _How the Left Can Win Arguments and Influence People:
a tactical manual for pragmatic progressives (NYUniversity Press,
2001), subtitles his Introduction: "The Progressive Majority: How the
Left Got Left Behind" and entitles chapter one: "The Death of
Socialism." He begins: "Dear Comrades: Socialism is dead. Kaput.
Stick a fork in Lenin's corpse. Take the Fidel posters off the wall.
Welcome to the twenty-first century. Wake up and smell the
capitalism...."

Robert D. Putnam, _Bowling Alone: the collapse and revival of
American community (2000, now in paperback), spends a good bit of
pages, in his mamouth discussion, talking about "social capital" and
ends by moving "toward an agenda for social capitalists". For years,
other progressive social scientists have made detailed sense of
"democratic capitalism". Robert Reich's _Work of Nations_ is over a
decade old (causing him to get "locked in the cabinet"--and what's he
write next?: _The Future of Success_). And on and on I could go
(*really*); so I don't give much truck any longer to fast-and-loose
counterposings of capitalism to something else untried (or tried and
tried again with the same bureaucratic-statist results).

But I don't get animated about socialism just because a lot of
progressive books can be cited that work with the market economy that
we have. I *do* believe I understand the aspirations of socialism
fairly well. But I bristle at tired rhetoric from no-longer-young
persons who talk like it's still the 1970s.

Brian--who scolds me today for writing irreverently Friday--wrote
earlier last week (0107.59: Jul 25) "I think you are somewhat of[f]
the mark in your attacks on socialism." I had no idea what "attacks"
you, Brian, were referring to, but I replied thoughtfully, I believe,
to everything you wrote--and replied *specifically*, paragraph by
paragraph. I enjoyed your expression of your views, albeit
disagreeing at every turn.

In your evidently hasty reply (deleting the latter part of your first
paragraph, which made construal of your main first point difficult),
you "can't concur with [my] notion that 'democratic
constitutionalism'...represent[s] a sufficient basis for a good
society." The natural response is: Well, then, what does? Yet, I
hadn't said anything about sufficient bases for anything. My main
kind of point had been that there is so much promise, potential and
ongoing success in democratically constituted societies that I have
to wonder what specifically is the merit of distinguishing
aspirations toward socialism from aspirations toward democracy.

Your disposition was, first, to point out some things that democratic
societies have not yet completed doing--as if, by analogy, the
unfinished effort to vaccinate a population against a disease, while
treating as many diseased persons as possible, is a critique of a
given public health effort. What instead would YOU do?

You pointed out that "democratic constitutionalism is often
compatible with non democratic forms of social authority (just look
at academic life for the height of hypocrisy on that regard)...."

Academic life, like any domain of social life, certainly has its
hypocrisy, but the democratic dimension of this--the academic senate,
departmental decision processes and communication channels--is
exactly the means that allows that hypocrisy to be exposed--and
addressed. But the fact of hypocracy in a given environment is not an
argument against the form of organization claiming to be democratic.
More importantly, though, academic life is basically a guild culture,
where labor-management issues are very entwined with peer review and
the extended family-tribal dynamics that altogether suggests a
moral-developmental continuum, and it is that *continuum* that is the
democracy, more than any particular form of organization (e.g.,
egalitarian decision processes that are central to *instituting*
norms). One could say that intra-departmental life is a tension
between various forms of organization: familial, tribal,
conventional, contractual, legal, and discursive. 

So, your "just look" example may dramatize how complex the notion of
"compatibility" of forms is: A pluralism of forms in a society is a
hallmark of pluralistic society, obviously; but it doesn't follow
from this that a higher form of organization (democratic
constitutionalism) *advocates* or acquiesces to the all forms of
authority. Yet, there's nothing inherently problematic with family,
tribal, conventional and contractual forms of organization, rather
only the *mis-generalization* or mis-application of one domain to a
range of contexts. Overriding is not the same as overbearing (thanks
to Stephen Scheffler, _Human Morality_); a form of organization can
be validly overriding in its proper range, and pluralism can avoid
being an overbearing relativism. 

It's a mistake to presume that non-democratic forms are not part of a
democratic society. So, in my view, you're not yet making your "can't
concur" interesting. 

You next say: " Certainly the welfare state can be paternalistic
unless it [is] guided by much broader ideals of human welfare, (most
drawn form socialism) that some welfare states provide." Are these
ideals drawn from socialism at all (let alone mostly)? And, in any
case, how might a state be guided by ideals non-paternalistically, if
not according to democratic constitutionalism?

In fact, I venture, our ideals of "human welfare" originate from
Hellenistic, Renaissance, Enlightenment, and democratic-constitutive
(particularly Anglo-American) experiences, and the late-coming
socialistic literature is parasitic on this humanistic history of
modernity. As to guidance, I think it's fair to yield to Habermas'
work here (nebulously, I know; but who's in for a close reading of
anything Habermas writes?).

Next, you say: "We can't release the emancipatory potentials... that
are in democracy without a more radical reorganization of many
aspects of social life." Meaning what? You "reply": "...ask[:] [W]hat
is require[d] to bring a larger conception of democracy (which might
be more than just "constitutionals democracy"[)] into view?"

OK. How about asking this relative to Habermas's conception of
democratic constitutionalism? What more than *that*, for example,
would you wish to bring into view? What you *say* is that "... we
still can't  bypass [t]he political economic aspects of social life,
which you[r] comment seems to do."  Which comment would that be? Was
it my allusion, Jul 25, to "so many examples of democracy developing
around the planet in locally-rooted ways, integratable with a global
democratic communication community that is the only viable
counter-hegemon to the destructive side effects of globalized
economic dynamics"? Or was it that I didn't refer enough to
_Legitimation Crisis_ in earlier postings contra-Marxism last week?

You ask, as counterpoint, I suppose, "Does democratic
constitutionalism entail worker's control over aspects of what they
produce? Certainly no[t] in the the US!!"

Well, you're simply wrong. Of course, democratic constitutionalism
doesn't entail worker-statism, thank goodness!!! (three exclamation
points to your two). I bet, though, that any credible effort on your
part to make sense of entailments about worker's control that doesn't
suggest paternalism will depend on democratic-humanist inheritances.

You note that "Generally the US constitution protects private
property at the expense of other needs." No, generally, this is not
the case, and when it *is* the case, it is the constitutional regime
that, first, provides the legal resources for pursuing grievances
about this; second, provides protections for the muchrakers who feed
on exposing such things; and third, funds the education system that
tries its best to ensure equal opportunity of access to the learning
processes that will allow people to communicate those needs
productively. Fail, we often do, but not because we lack exemplary
effort in the planet's most diverse society.

"[P]erhaps a democratic constitutionalism of the future, but again
that would entail the ideals developed by socialism."  Nope, that
would *not* entail socialist ideals, because constitutionalism is
*already* of the future, i.e., it is a system designed to foster
futurity (as procedural form that is open regarding its employment--
whether legislating for time to come, administering for goals to be
met, and adjudicating conflicts about how to go forward, and other
things). The so-called "ideals developed by socialism" are, I say
again, democratic ideals, based in the humanistic tradition shared
with existing democratic projects. 

Next, you write: "It seems to me however, that...democracy is still
largely linked to property. isn't...this more than obvious by the way
protesters against the globalization of the private property regime
are treated?..."

"Linked to property"? This does like something out of the 19th
century.  You really do seem caught in the sterotypical thinking of
70s protesters, when you write this way.  "...As far as I can see, it
would require radical change and not just amelioration to change this
political economic regime. The organization of production and labor
is still an issue for us today."

This is dated, stereotypical rhetoric. 

You write: "In the end[,] if we reduce critical theory to a version
of 'what we have now' I don't see it as critical theory anymore." 

Now, see, you read as carefully as you write. The exchange you're
alluding to is, I suppose, this:


[B] What is your notion of an alternative to these developments
[i.e., "risks of social life...being downloaded..."]. 

[G] More communication. More education. More health care. Thinking
globally, acting locally. Etc.

[B] What kind of political community provides an alternative.

[G] The highly complex community "we" (globally) already have.


So, you see, neither your context nor mine was about Critical Theory,
let alone any reduction on my part of anything. 
"More....More....Thinking...acting..."

I titled my irreverent reply "Progress After Critical Theory," which
seems topical. 

"...we can all join the DNC (centrist democrats whi supported Clinton
Gore et all)  or another national variant and be happy."

Do you have a broken finger? Anyway, that kind of facileness, in the
face of the thoughtful reply to you that you're reacting against,
does not foster further thoughtfulness on my part, I must say (given
your scolding today). 

Today, you reply: "...your reply seems to show you tone deaf to the
refrains of a theory of society" and continue: "If you had read my
post with a less jaundiced eye you would have recognized that I do
not reject [a] constitutional governs [?] human rights regime
etc.(the phrase no matter ho[w] important is ther[e] for a reason),
but that they are not enough as they stand to bring about  the kind
of social changes we need. The desire to being about grater freedom
form domination runs up against the limits of corporate globalization
that is busy converting more social spheres than ever in th terms of
money and power."

I didn't connote that you rejected constitutionality. I just found
your rhetoric stereotyped (and your tone of response not
constructive)--and, by the way, not in any way expressing somethng
"socialist" that isn't ordinary political polemic. Again, I was
challenging the credibility of socialist rhetoric (oppositionalism, I
might call it). 

"I just don;t see where you commitment to 'constitutional democracy'
as opposed to a brooder notion...."

"...a broader notion"? There you go again. 

"...and i don;t think (though I do no[t] reject the social scientific
concept of development, that more significant changes are going to
happen without conflict."

Who says democracy lacks conflict? But what about the value of
*constructiveness*. It seems to me that socialist "idealism" lacks
good ideas for complex society that aren't lifted from active
democratic projects and experiences. 

"Whether my hypothesis is true or not in itself,...."

What hypothesis?

"... it's  not an unreasonable argument..."

What argument?

"... and it's hardly grounds for your conclusion. You just want to
hear things your way"

Now *that's* astute. Me and my subjectivism (I was born a Gemini,
but, hey, it's *modernity* that's schizey, not me.)
                  
"Rather than accuse others of missing your point, I believe you
should pay more careful attention to how you have bifurcated the
alternatives available."

I'm with you against bifurcation (though happy to be a Gemini).

"Either advocates of 'socialism' are totality oriented Marxists or
they must accept the current forms of democracy as if not just, good
enough."

No, my point had been that socialism is a bad form of democratic
thinking (socialism is a statist form of democratic idealism). I
hadn't connoted any bifurcation like what you exhibit. 

"You seem to try to box me and others within a narrow set of
possibilities."

Not me.

Cheers, anyway. 

Gary 







__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/


     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---