><< general public and legal experts have very much different
> concepts of "justice," and it is very arrogant to accept the latter as the
> only valid one, or to assume that people should follow what the experts
> tell them is right. >>
>
>And Nazis and Jews have different coinceptions of justice, W. Is it arrogant
>of the Jews not to give a whole lot of consideration to the Nazi point of
>view?
>
>Nobody here, least of all me, the lawyer, will wrap himself in the mantle of
>her expertise and mouth off to the workers on that that basis. But a number
>of us have been down the other road, where some intellectual's idea of what
>the workers think is useda as a bludgeon to smash the view of other
>intellectuals that cannot be beaten on the basis of argument. That is pretty
>tired too, W, and you are not tapped into the proletarian mind any more than
>I am, or any less. We would do better discussiong the merits of our
>positions. Personally, I doubt your supposition that working people do not
>care about due process, but if they don't, they'[rew just as wrong as if they
>have racist attitudes--a more plausible claim, from my reading of the
>evidence.
Justin put it so well that I have little to add to it, but I think the rhetorical tactic Justin mentioned -- some intellectuals using their ideas of "what workers think" as bludgeons to smash other intellectuals' ideas that cannot be beaten on the basis of argument -- is so common as to deserve a mention on its own account. The same tactic is used in any debates on the subjects on which there exist among workers opinions that are contrary to their objective class interest. Neoconservatives love this rhetoric (probably because they used to be leftists of one kind or another, they remember to mention "workers").
Just because some workers happen to think X is right at present doesn't mean that X is in the interest of the working class, _even if_ the majority of them think so. Empiricism & subjectivism won't do here. We cannot but consider the objective interest of the working class, however unpopular references to objectivity may be nowadays. For instance, Doug posted this the other day:
>Guardian (London) - February 15, 2000
>
>Anger grows as US jails its two millionth inmate
>The land of the free is now home to 25% of the world's prison population
>
>Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
>
>Vigils are being mounted today in more than 30 major cities in the
>United States to draw attention to the arrival of the two millionth
>inmate in American jails. The US comprises 5% of the global
>population yet it is responsible for 25% of the world's prisoners. It
>has a higher proportion of its citizens in jail than any other
>country in history, according to the November Coalition, an alliance
>of civil rights campaigners, justice policy workers and drug law
>reformers.
The massive growth of prisons, the highest rate of incarceration in the world, the continuing losses of civil liberties, etc. are objectively not in the interest of the working class.
Relinquishing references to objectivity isn't a liberatory anti-elitist gesture respectful of "ordinary people" as it is sometimes made out to be. It's just a pretext for and a step toward conservativism.
Yoshie