[PEN-L:148] Re: In Defense of History

[Ajit Sinha <ecas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 13:55 20/05/98 -0400, Ricardo wrote:
>Another point is that human cooperation  necessarily involves norms
>otherwise it is strictly instinctual.
___________

This, of course, takes us to the Habermasian position on language and
normative values. I'll try to somehow incorporate this point in my review
with appropreate acknowledgment. One point that struck me in that book was
a complete absence to any reference to Habermas. How can a book
intendending to be a defense of Enlightenment in 1998 not even refer to
Habermas? Which world are they living in?

Your other points are also quite thought provoking, and I'll think about
them. I'm waiting for the criticisms from Jim Devine and Doug Henwood. And
i hope some postmodernists on the list would say a few things too. On
"justice" I only want everybody to think about it, to begin with. Cheers,
ajit sinha
>
>
>> Next comes an interesting interview with Aijaz Ahmad (this interview was
>> conducted by Slovenian journalists Erika Repovz and Nikolai Jeffs and is
>> edited for this volume by Ellen Wood). In this interview Ahmad talks about
>> varied issues such as nationalism, fascism, diversity, universality, etc.
>> Though Professor Ahmad supports anti-imperialist nationalism-he thinks such
>> nationalism is essential for a colonized society to reach socialism-he is
>> quite skeptical of nationalism in general and sees a threat of fascism in
>> it whenever nationalism turns into a quest for "purified and homogeneous
>> nations." Thus Ahmad is extremely in favor of diversity and heterogeneity.
>> At the same time, however, he champions the idea of universality. He argues
>> that particular rights or right to be different can only be defended and
>> fought for  within the ideology of universal right. This is an interesting
>> idea but needs to be developed further. For example, how does one reconcile
>> universality and diversity when the right to be different comes in conflict
>> with the ideology of universality? Moreover, as Professor Ahmad himself
>> agrees, capitalism is a highly universalizing culture. The universalization
>> or the 'McDonalization' of the world is at the expense of diversity. How
>> does one fight such universalizing tendencies on the basis of an ideology
>> of universality?
>
>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (of the UN)
>includes, by definition, individual rights.
>
>
>> Yet Nanda herself admits that no observation is 'innocent'. The fact that
>> observations and theories are interconnected and internally related to each
>> other, the fact that no observation is 'innocent' means that the idea of an
>> 'objective nature' is simply a fundamental belief of 'Western science'. It
>> is not a proposition that could be proved or an hypothesis that could be
>> established by science itself. This fundamental belief must be simply
>> accepted by the scientist and must be kept beyond the realm of criticism.
>> The culture of criticism comes to an end here.
>
>We had this debate here before. Empiricism cannot justify
>itself by itself; it has to appeal to some extra-empirical
>criteria to do so. Habermas says that verification is valid only in a
>pragmatic sense: we humans, or a community of scientists, have
>decided that the method of the natural siences is "valid" because
>it serves certain pragmatic interests. And for Habermas that
>interest is *technical* mastery of nature. By that criteria what the
>natural sciences say is true. No reason to fall back into mysticism.
>
>> Next comes a paper by the co-editor John Bellamy Foster on 'Marx and the
>> Environment'. In this paper, Foster argues against the popular view that
>> Marx adopted a productivist view of history that subordinates environment
>> or nature to the logic of material production. He argues, on the contrary,
>> that both Marx and Engels were quite aware of man's dependence on nature
>> and the conflict between production and environment. Thus they argued for
>> "sustainable development" and not development per se. This paper is a
>> positive contribution and opens Marxism up  to the contemporary debate on
>> environment. This notwithstanding, I think Professor Foster would agree
>> that the idea of  "sustainable development" is essentially rooted in man's
>> control over nature-it is only about better planning. Such an idea has
>> become part of world bourgeois ideology, and does not have revolutionary
>> potential in the contemporary environmental movement.
>
>
>There is no evidence whatsoever that Marx and Engels were
>ecologically-minded; to expect them to be is anachronistic.
>
>
>> In the end, I would like to make a small point. In his lecture on Marx,
>> Derrida (1994) remarked that justice is a notion that cannot be
>> deconstructed. I think it is a very significant point, which could prove to
>> be strategic in bringing a convergence between Marxist and the
>> postmodernist moral discourse.The idea of justice is not necessarily an
>> Enlightenment idea. Both Western and Eastern socities have had this idea
>> for a long time. Marx's moral critique of capitalism is also rooted in the
>> idea of justice rather than the idea of universalism or freedom (see Geras,
>> 1992). We need to contemplate on the question of justice and just society.
>
>
>Yea but you need to tell us what Derrida (or you) mean by justice.
>
>ricardo
>
>>
>> REFERENCES
>>
>> Derrida, J. 1994. Spectres of Marx: the state of the debt, the work of
>> mourning, and the New International. New York: Routledge.
>>
>> Geras, N. 1992. 'Bringing Marx to Justice: An addendum and Rejoinder.' New
>> Left Review 195.
>>
>> Habermas, J. 1987. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge,
>> Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
>>
>> Luxemburg, R. 1963. The Accumulation of Capital. London: Routledge and
>> Kegan Paul.
>>
>> Rorty, R. 1989. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge
>> University press.
>>
>> Wallerstein, I. 1983. Historical Capitalism. London: Verso.
>>
>>
>>
>
>