Appreciate the proper attribution of my favorite quote (can you cite the source, privately?).
>
>But why was the analogy ill-conceived?
Because it throws in a case that is so obviously evil that it shuts down any rational debate (you know, the ifs, the demurers, the devil's advocates etc.). I speak here as a reformed sinner - I think that Doug should impose a $1 fine for every utterance of the N-word on this list (the proceeds can fund a dunk-a-Nazi keg party in NYC for lbo-talk listers).
>It does make the point that
>disagreement does not mean that all views are entitled to equal respect. I
>was not talking it to myself to dispute the "objective interests of the
>working class" on behalf of my own superior knowlege, but remarking that if
>some workers have views that are contemptuous of due process or bigoted
>towards persons of different race, they are wrong. Their views do not
deserve
>more consideration because they are working class.
Getting to the issue of legitimacy inevitably implies some form of omniscient normative rationality - a position that I deliberately tried to avoid. More preceisely, you can call someone a bigot only if you assume an omniscient knowledge of what that person means by doing and saying certain things (a position that is typically implied by rat-choice theorists).
The position I take is that it may or may not be bigoted, despite its appearances to me. So rather than labeling someone a bigot, I need to make an effort to understand what that person really means, instead of imposing my meaning on his/her words or actions.
A few real life examples. I once had a casual conversation with a migrant construction worker in Baltimore, who repeatedly used the word "n-word." Rather than labeling him a racist and ending the conversastion, I simply asked him what he had against blacks. It turned out that nothing in particular - au contraire, most of his coworkers were black and he highly respected them. In their work slang, however, the word "n-word" was used (by blacks) simply to describe bums and idlers (who in Baltimore are predominantly black). It also turned out that my informant lived in a "bad" section of the city and feared being a victim of crime (which is rampant in B'more, we are probably the murder capital of the US) - hence his hostility toward the "criminal element" which in B'more is also predeominantly black.
Another example. Most of my neighbors (I live in an urban empowerment zone) often express contempt or hostility toward residends of the nearby public housing projetcs, who are predominantly black. This is often labeled "racist" by the media and outsiders. In reality, however, most people in my neighborhood who espouse such views (both publicly and privately) are blacks, most of whom moved to the empowerment zone from public housing. For them, this was a huge step upwards that cost them a lot of effort and hard work, and their worst nighmare is that the "ghetto will follow them" (to use the words of one of my neighbors).
This example suggest that intellectuals and pundits (such as myself) not only have no monopoly on interpreting someone else's "communicative actions," but oftentimes they are too prejudiced and close-minded to make what can bona fide qualify as an educated guess. In my experience, intelelctuals are probaly one of the most rigid-minded people - mainly because of their training that emphasizes adherence to intellecctual dogmas and authorities.
>
>Perhaps you diasgree: Nazi views of justice, you might think, deserve no
>particular consideration,
In fact I do. I think that refusing to consider Nazi views (oops, here goes my buck) is a part of a larger effort to portray nazism as a historcial exception and thus mentally isolate and neutralize its implications. On the other hand, if you view them as rational individuals trying to achieve specific policy objectives and duly consider their solution to a commonly perceived problem (cf. Richard Rubenstein, _The Cunning of History_), you can actually learn something from their experience that can serve as a warning for a today's society. IMHO, exorcisms and condemnations are like prayers - they give you an illusion that you control things while taking away the means of understanding and factual control.
> Maybe you area
>Lukacsian who believes in the Standpoint of the Proletariat
Au countraire, as previously argued, I specifically argued against any claims to superior rationality (in fact, the vanguard party position is a reformulation of the old Catholic dogma of papal infallibility). I amay also add that I am less and less certain what is "true and objective" (perhaps an early sign of senility).
wojtek