> The idea of guilt, responsibility, and accountability, applied to
corporations or the U.S. government, implies that these institutions may be
good or bad, that there is no fundamentally valid critique of their
_existence_. Abolition of the State and the class war aren't needed, just
better rulers and class warriors, for some meaning of _better_.
Actually, the notions of responsibility and accountability does apply to the critique of existing institutions. It wouldn't be difficult to establish that certain political and economic structures are fundamentally incompatible with being held responsible. In effect, the measure of responsibility *demands* that certain "irresponsible" or "unaccountable" institutions be abolished. Likewise, anything that hinders those attempted to determine guilt or innocence must also be abolished. The heart of accountability resides with the question: how much damage (actual and potential) does an institution have to inflict before we question its right to exist? Justice is not exhausted by passing a series of questions through a preloaded Kantian test (Kant found it impossible to conceive of a world without private property). Questions of responsibility and accountability are determined within a community, and this community *generates* or *creates* its own discursive and political measures and rules, in which nothing is left unquestioned. This does not necessarily exclude questioning the existence of certain institutions. Certainly one paradox would be using arguments to critique the validity of other arguments. When this happens I understand it to indicate that the structures in which arguments are raised need to be questioned... and not necessarily arguments themselves... so I think it completely appropriate to criticize existing democratic norms without calling for an abandonment of democracy or autonomy. So, yeah, I agree with you in some respects. In some cases we need "better" institutions. In other cases we need to eliminate institutions. In both cases, the question of responsibility is crucial. Who is responsible for the damage. Who is responsible for setting up new institutions? or transforming the idea of institutionalization altogether. My point is that the creative ideals of democracy (autonomy, whatever) are not *essentially* or *inherently* tied to specific notions of class or state. Human rights and liberty, two sides of a paradox, need not disappear after the revolution. Historically they are connected, and in a very practical sense these things are related. But that's part of the challenge, to brush these ideals against their existing conditions - to transform them and imagine something different. Right now responsibility and accountability are among the most political effective ideas that make criticism of existing institutions possible. If we ditch responsibility then criticism becomes irrelevant.
And if I can be permitted to speculate... I can't help but think that the guiding idealistic vision of statelessness and classlessness is a bad utopia. It is an inspiring ideal, but it is well beyond the capacity of current historical configurations. Nation and class are categories that are inherently antagonistic - we need to struggle with them because we exist in them. This does not justify the status quo, rather, calls for an immanent critique of their existing logic and reality. What may come after that I do not know, I hope it will be something better, something different.
ken