Subject: Re: HAB: Left in division (does Habermas have a solution?)
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 08:48:51 


Dear Thomas

You have articulated your concerns very well. I appreciate your opposition 
to capitalism and your concern for evolving a unified strategy against it. I 
also agree with you that we need both Marx and Jesus. Jesus because His 
life, His ethos is the denial of Capitalist ethos. Without this ethos we can 
not pose any real challange to capitalism. In my view the greatest failure 
of communism was that they lacked Jesus. They lacked the real and concrete 
vision of a non capitalist way of life. Therefore it could not pose any real 
challange to capitalism in the long run because the yearnings and longings 
of people were not changed, they remained the same as those in capitalist 
countries. And if those longings and yearnings are better catered to by 
capitalism people would have no reason not to return to it. A friend of mine 
who witnessed the fall of Berlin wall told me how people coming from the 
east were flocking onto bananas like dying person because presumably they 
did not have banana for those long years! If you can not overcome 'banana' 
forget about overcoming capitalism!

But Jesus is not enough! We need Marx, because Marx draws our attention to 
the phenomenon of state and power in capitalism. The capitalist system, more 
than any known system in history (may be with the exception of Gupta India), 
has concentrated power to such a formidable extent that to defeat it a 
parallel concentration of counter power is needed, without that, one can not 
imagine to overcome capitalism and its ruthless hegemony through mere 
moralisation.

In this sense I conceive myself as both leftist and rightist. I want to be 
left of Marx and right of Jesus!

Having said that, I would like to problematise the conception of pluralism 
itself. I find it to be the heart of the logic of (especially) late 
capitalism. Capitalism consists of worst and most ruthless kind of 
singularity (i.e that singularity of accumulation for the sake of 
accumulation)  but its logic needs this singularity to emerge out of ever 
growing diversity. Due to this dual demand of its logic capitalism actually 
requires management of everything, control of each moment of and each 
stratum of the life of society and individuals. Ever growing control, and 
oppression is not contingent to capitalism, it can not help it, it must 
control ruthlessly and oppressively if it is to survive. In this sense there 
is no human face of capitalism, no better or good capitalism. And pluralism 
is the heart of this dual logic of freedom, diversity on the one hand and 
control, oppression and strict imposition of singularity on the other. 
Singularity less pluralism is a myth. The neutrality of liberal state is a 
chimera because it is committed to the singularity of accumulation for the 
sake of accumulation. Therefore capitalism's relation with liberalism is 
necessary but on the other hand its relation with democracy is contingent. 
Only liberal sort of democracies (i.e diversity that is convergable to the 
singularity of capitalism) are allowed, and constitution makes this sure 
that no demos ever rule but only the Capital. Rallying people for pluralism 
is to play in the hand of capitalism and nothing else. We need to rally 
people around non capitalist singularity and we need to expose the blackmail 
of pluralism.

Now I am not sure what role Habermas can play in this context. Over the 
years, I have sadly watched, his drift towards conservatism. Americans have 
been able to incorporate him in the way in which they were never able to 
incorporate Foucault. Hence he remains a dangerous philosopher while 
Habermas has increasingly become a ploy in the hand of capitalists. Although 
this does not affect in any way the worth of his work, from the level of 
activism it is  a sad scenario.
thats it for now.

best regards
ali

"We do not lack communication, on the contrary we have too much of it. We 
lack creation. We lack resistence to the present.
                                                                             
    Deleuze and Guattari

The final word on power is that resistence comes first.
                                                                         
Deleuze


----Original Message Follows----
From: Thomas McDonald
Reply-To: habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
To: habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: HAB: Left in division (does Habermas have a solution?)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:14:46 -0800 (PST)
In response to my post "Why has Islam failed to modernize?" I received
two responses that I believe so accurately characterize *the division*
that cripples the contemporary Left in *the struggle to organize a
credible challenge to capitalism*. It also seems to me that the
possibility of healing this division is what attracts people to
Habermas's project..
I must admit that I purposely framed the question "Why has Islam failed
to modernize?" specifically to lure these two types of responses
because I believe this question draws out the heart of the division in
the contemporary Left. I am personally divided about how to reconcile
this kind of division, which is why I put the question out in the way
that I did..
Forgive me for not taking time to quote specifically from each post. I
just wanted to spit this out as quick as I could. I take full
responsibility for these being *my interpretations*, made for sake of
argument:
Ali responded from what I would call a Postmodern Left stance. Ali
expressed an outrage at perceived *insensitivity* on my part toward
'the other' by using words like 'failure' to describe Islam (regardless
of the fact that my accusation was pointing to it's failure at
pluralism). Then, to further justify defence of 'the other' (because
all non-hegemonic 'others' tend to be automatically defended by the
Postmodern Left, regardless of circumstances) Ali rationalized that
Islamic fundamentalism was only being targeted by America because it is
*a* form of resistance to capitalism. This rationalization assuages
some on the Left, but not people like Bob..
Bob responded from what I would call a Modern Left (or neo-Marxist)
stance. As much as Bob might dislike America, he understands Marx.
Modernists (like Habermas, opposed to radical postmodernism) still
believe in 'progress'. A society *must progress* past mythical,
premodern psychologies to achieve liberation. Capitalism is a necessary
stage that must be reached before it can be surpassed with Socialism
(while the idea that 'others' 'must progress' is painfully offensive to
the Postmodern Left). From this Modern Left perspective, one has to be
against Islamic fundamentalism in this war, on the grounds of a
Socialist Ideal that rejects *all* religious claims to absolute Truth.
This division has the American and European Left in knots. Not only
about this war.. but I think this problem represents a deeper problem
that is stopping the Left from organizing a legitimate challenge to
capitalism.
Until these divided perspectives can reconcile their differences,
capitalism rules.
I'm looking for an answer to this problem as much as anyone else, since
I have sympathies for both Jesus and Marx. I'm motivated by the
transcendance of soul and body over capitalist oppression.
This is basically why I'm interested in Habermas. He seems to be the
only contemporary thinker pointing the way toward such a reconciliation
within the Left.
"Something was lost when sin became guilt."
-Jurgen Habermas
Regards,
Tom
====Tom McDonald CONTACT INFO:
WEBSITE: http://www.ThomasMcDonald.com
EMAIL: mcdonald928-AT-yahoo.com
INSTANT MESSENGER: "omhats" on AOL & MSN, "mcdonald928" on Yahoo

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com



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