Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 02:12:54 -0500
Subject: Re: HAB: solidarity [Ralph #2]


Quite obviously there so no better argument or force behind it but only 
strategic action.

As for Hussein in exile, there's nothing to be lost by it as he is a 
reactionary dictator.  However, the new question emerges as to the regime 
to supplant Hussein's.  Chances are the USA would only accept or install a 
puppet of its own choice, so the question of democracy or justice for the 
Iraqi people remains trampled underfoot.  Hence if the peace movement is 
now taking such a proposal seriously, what do the relevant proponents think 
are the implications for what happens next?

Due to some punctuation and other errors I was probably unclear in some of 
my assertions.  I was trying to suggest that opposition to this war is more 
mainstream than ever, even if the hard core "peace and justice" activist 
community within it is up to its ears in superstition and wishful 
thinking.  If anything, the left is not radical enough to address the 
people's needs.

Not only is Habermas' clean-cut high school debating club mentality not 
useful for this situation, but let me say what else it is not useful 
for.  The formalism of the complex of ideas expressed does not seem to 
address the substantive power relations existing in any situation that make 
the pretense of rational dialogue ineffective and duplicitous. The 
enforcement of procedural discourse following the rules of civility is 
itself an ideological mask and an act of violence.  It means always being 
put through the ringer on someone else's terms, like having a discussion 
with this jackass Gary Davis.

Now as before, I will repeat that Habermas has made a tremendous 
contribution by restoring the notion of the indispensability of liberal 
culture for modern society, and that no short cuts are affordable in the 
quest to overcome alienation, on the part of the counterculture, New Left, 
Stalinism, etc.  The values of the liberal society cannot be limited to 
liberalism, but must also be incorporated into a post-capitalist society as 
well or the horrors of the 30th century will be repeated.  In fact, the 
values of liberal society can only be realized within a radical 
perspective.  Radicals have always done the liberals' work for them, that 
they have been too pusillanimous to undertake themselves.  But Habermas, in 
spite of his early engagement with Hegel, his inept reading of Marx, etc., 
seems to have stagnated as an alienated liberal academic.  Those who study 
him seem to be much worse, far more conservative, even.  Furthermore, most 
of them are just academic masturbators.  Critical theory has become an 
object of aesthetic contemplation, not an active tool to engage 
reality.  Hence the precious baloney we are always reading on these 
lists.  'Communicative rationality' is only middle class gentility, not the 
preservation of individual autonomy and freedom of inquiry.

At 11:58 PM 1/22/2003 +0000, matthew piscioneri wrote:
>Has the unforced force of the better argument emerged?
>
>Take the existence or otherwise of WOMD as the core validity claim; to 
>this observer I would suggest that the validity of the U.S's and Blair's 
>claim (that Iraq has WOMDs) is doubtful. So the allies next claim is an 
>almost unredeemeable validity claim: Iraq is hiding these weapons...how 
>can this validity claim be redeemed and the unforced force of the better 
>argument rationally be ascertained? So somewhere at this point the 
>usefulness of Habermas starts to decline. Switch over to overt strategic 
>action wherein the claim to validity is in fact an unmasked power claim: 
>Do this or else...hand them over or we will attack. Now what happens if 
>Iraq doesn't have anything to handover. Other than the wonderfully absurd 
>scenario of Iraq quickly purchasing WOMDs from the U.S, and then handing 
>them back, Iraq has no where to go.
>
>This is why I see more value in the anti-war movement (and I don't *like* 
>this approach) supporting calls for Hussein to go into exile.
>
>So it is NOT that we Habermasians are useless; just that the time for 
>Habermas's theory to be practically useful seems to have passed. Although, 
>whilst there is talk people aren't being blown apart. That remains a 
>momentary positive in the face of the forthcoming instalment of absurdity 
>about to be played out.
>
>Regards,
>
>MattP


__________________________________________________

"I treat the ridiculous seriously when I treat it with ridicule."
       -- Karl Marx



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