Means & Ends (was Re: Ethical foundations of the left)

Kelley kwalker2 at gte.net
Tue Jul 31 20:03:23 PDT 2001


At 10:17 PM 7/31/01 -0700, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
>At 08:02 PM 7/31/01 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>We can put it more strongly. We can't even defend the existing rights &
>>liberties -- not to mention establish them where such do not yet exist --
>>by trying to put Habermas's philosophy into practice.
>
>"There can be no theory which at the outset can assure a world-historical
>mission in return for the potential sacrifices." - JH
>
>Do I need to expand on what this means?

No, H can, never mind that this will be the third time that i posted it to the list!

While the theory legitimizes the work of enlightenment, as well as providing its own refutation when communication fails, it can by no means legitimate 'a fortiori' the risky decisions of strategic action. Decisions for political struggle cannot at the outset be justified theoretically and then be carried out organizationally. The sole possible justification at this level is consensus, aimed at in practical discourse, among the participants, who, in the consciousness of their common interests [in terms of how to engage in political practice whether single issue or not] and their knowledge of the circumstances, of the consequences, are the only ones who can know what risks they are willing to undergo, and with what expectations. There can be no theory which at the outset can assure a world- historical mission....

and, of course, he rejects "correctness":

...while the vindicating superiorty of those who do the enlightening over those who are to be enlightened is theoretically unavoidable...at the same time it is fictive and requires its own critique in a process of enlightenment there can only be participants...



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list