> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of James Farmelant
> >And for once, to say something good about The New Republic and Leon
> >Wieseltier, his review of West, was devastating, as was Adolph Reed's
> >piece in the Viilage Voice.
As if a hitpiece by THE NEW REPUBLIC is anything but an attempt to take out one of the only avowed socialists who gets a regular hearing in the public media. Why anyone would applaud a hit like that I don't know. Adolph Reed is of course a very different case since he has substantive differences on left and African-American strategy and approaches.
But the attacks on West go to his bias for organization over criticism, action over theorizing.
Ralph Dumain's anti-pragmatic view sums up the virtues of Cornel as far as I'm concerned:
>Not surprisingly, West
> most favors Dewey. Dewey possesses the virtues of the others in denying
> the autonomy of philosophy and deeming it "inextricably bound to culture,
> society, and history", but he retains the normative function of
> philosophy as well. Dewey's great conception of philosophy is summed up
thusly
> (original italicized): "Philosophy is the interpretation of a people's
> past for the purpose of solving specific problems presently confronting the
> cultural way of life from which the people come." (p. 122) Note that
> this pragmatist creed is a canonical form of subjective idealism. Philosophy
> is both expressive and critical, but it doesn't seem to be grounded in any
> rational norms or notion of objectivity, but rather some arbitrarily
> defined social need. Given West's philosophic models (which, note, explicitly
> exclude anything scientific), one cannot be surprised at his adoption of
> subjectivism.
Now not to dip to far into philosophical depths, the above statement seems silly on its own terms. By definition, a dependence on the utility of an idea in solving problems is objective for there is clear proof of its worth-- i.e. whether it works. Pragmaticism is heavily scientific for that reason alone. The difference between science and abstract philosophy is precisely that science has no use for ideas that do not include "specific problems" which the scientific method can test various solutions against.
Why social needs are "arbitrary" in this definition is unclear, unless you have no sense of moral outrage and no sense of injustice. And if you don't, I have never believed that any objective philosophy delivers them.
None of this defends West per se and I have not actually read much of his stuff. I like West because he is one of the few writers and media figures who supports concrete political organizations and actually signs his name on membershp/leadership lists with a group like Democratic Socialists of America -- something West shares with Adolph Reed and Manning Marable, but few others -- with notable organizational agnostics being Cockburn and Chomsky.
And why with the paucity of left-leaning public intellectuals, folks would attack Cornel is beyond me. I was watching a CROSSFIRE over Christmas where they were debating the greatest people of the 20th century and it was great seeing West trashing Bill Kristol's choice of Churchill, asking how Kristol can promote the defense against Communism while defending a colonialist who helped subjugate most of the globe. He gave no ground in defending grassroots organizers and anticolonization leaders over conservative choices of "anti-Communist" politicians.
I understand a bit of internal debate on the shortcomings of left leadership on lists like this or at left organizational meetings, but I far prefer having West out there in the public media trashing Churchill and Reagan then Cockburn out there trashing John Sweeney.
-- Nathan Newman