I stand by my criticism of your interpretation. You collapse what Weber called "value rationality," or fanaticism, into economic rationality, or the adaption of proportionate and senisble means to ends. Clausewitz would not say that war for honor and glory, individual combat at the expense of military victory, fit with the continuiation of political ends by other means. That was precisely the view he was attacking. "Face":is just a modern version of honor. jks
Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 andienachgeborenen wrote:
> Actually, I disagree with your transation. "Verkehrs" I read as
> "intercourse" not "discourse."
You're quite right, that was a trans-o. I meant to write intercourse. That paragraph should have read:
Secondly, the apercu itself has nothing with war having a purpose. This idea rests on a slightly inaccurate translation. The original actually says that war is the continuation "of political intercourse" (des politischen Verkehrs) "mixed in with other means" (mit Einmischung anderer Mittel.) If the aims of political intercourse revolve around the concept of face, then so too will the aims of war.
Michael
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030328/b98e9610/attachment.htm>