imomus | The real Neo-Marxism

The real Neo-Marxism

Local man sometimes is. As we discovered yesterday, it's not so much that I refuse point blank to be interested in what's going on around me in Germany. It's that I'll pay attention to it when it's interesting. This produces a paradox: I'll agree to be local only when the local culture produces something of global significance.

The Germany I love is the Germany which has, occasionally, achieved that. Take the Frankfurt School. This group of New Left intellectuals -- Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, Marcuse, Fromm -- made a worldwide intellectual impact in the postwar years. If there's such a thing as "Frankfurt School Pop Music", my early records are it. "The Man on Your Street: Songs from the Career of the Dictator Hall", for instance, couldn't have been made without Adorno's book "The Authoritarian Personality". The more introspective Momus records that followed drew heavily on Adorno's "Minima Moralia". (How could one man have written such different books? From the empirical to the diaristic, from the pragmatic-propagandistic to the subtly doubtful and despairing.) And Marcuse's concept of "repressive desublimation" has been bobbing in and out of Click Opera regularly recently, a useful mallet to hit our "compulsory fun", party-at-the-back mullet culture with.

So what would the titans of the Frankfurt School make of today's America, and today's Europe? Would they still believe in the inevitability of Marxist revolution? We know the answer, because one of them is still around. Jürgen Habermas, the youngest of the Frankfurt School intellectuals, is 77, and still active. "His work," says Wikipedia, "sometimes labelled as Neo-Marxist, focuses on the foundations of social theory and epistemology; the analysis of advanced capitalist industrial society and of democracy; the rule of law in a critical social-evolutionary context; and contemporary – especially German – politics."

As a student, I made a circle around Habermas. His work always seemed more grey, subtle, abstruse and meta than the great generation of Benjamin and Adorno; Habermas' thing is epistemology and hermeneutics -- in other words how we know what we know, who says so, and how we decide what's rational. He doesn't think revolution is inevitable; if it comes, it'll be based on people acting spontaneously in their own rational interests. Unfashionably (in a postmodernist and relativist era), Habermas believes that rationality can, to all intents and purposes, be underpinned by something we can think of as universal and objective -- an enlightened intersubjectivity, at the very least.

So far, so dull. But what of praxis? Well, recently Habermas has thrown himself behind the campaign of Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt for a United States of Europe. As reported in Sign and Sight, Habermas kicks away the idea that to let Europe drift without a constitution, or to have no army, is to be neutral. That, he believes, is to be spinelessly complicit:

"If we are not able to hold a Europe-wide referendum before the next European elections in 2009 on the shape Europe should take, the future of the Union will be decided in favour of neo-liberal orthodoxy. Avoiding this touchy issue for the sake of a convenient peace and muddling along the well-trodden path of compromise will give free reign to the dynamic of unbridled market forces..."

The same goes for Europe's military effectiveness:

"Only a European Union capable of acting on the world stage - and taking its place beside the USA, China, India and Japan - can press for an alternative to the ruling Washington consensus in the world's economic institutions. Only such a Europe can advance the long overdue reforms within the UN which are both blocked by and dependent on the USA. It is precisely in critical cases of joint action that we must break free of our dependence on our superior partner. That is one more reason why the European Union needs its own armed forces. Until now Europeans have been subordinated to the dictates and regulations of the American high command in NATO deployments. The time has come for us to attain a position where even in a joint military deployment we still remain true to our own conceptions of human rights, the ban on torture and wartime criminal law."

In other words, we need to remilitarize in order not to be complicit with America's tendency to invade and to torture.

I find this interesting, especially when we take it into the Japanese context. If Habermas is "the real Neo-Marxism", we see him fundamentally reversing the positions of our friend David Marx on the misleadingly-titled Neomarxisme blog. Neomarxisme is pro-business and anti-militarist, whereas Habermas is anti-business and pro-militarist. In the Japanese context, perhaps Habermas would see the non-militarism of the Japanese constitution as America's way to ensure that their own militarism goes unchallenged. While it's certainly true that Japan's desire to re-militarize is being actively encouraged by the American regime, it's a strategy that could backfire for the Neocons if, for instance, Japan used its new clout to challenge imperialism and torture, and to demand a return to the norms of international law, the Geneva Convention, and so on (as Habermas suggests a Europe with a defense minister would do).

I'm also interested to see that the first act of "remilitarizing hawk" Shinzo Abe is a highly positive one: he's moving to set up a meeting with South Korea, in an attempt to do what Koizumi so signally failed to: mend relations with Japan's Asian neighbours. Imagine a United States of Asia and a United States of Europe, both with armies, and both demanding that the renegade US return to the framework of international agreements and the rule of law. Only the strong can keep the peace, and only the united can be strong.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm afraid Habermas's vision of Europe is pie in the sky. If the results of the constitution referendum are anything to go by, there's little support for strengthening European integration, let alone having a unified defense force etc. In a sense, the EU exists because it is weak; local populations can and do protest when there are propositions to toughen it up, centralise power structures etc. I just don't see the appetite for that among the different European populations. For that kind of unified decision-making, you need broad political, institutional and cultural consensus, such as you find within European countries where one ethnic group is overwhelmingly dominant (and dominant enough to be unthreatened and therefore tolerant of the country's minorities). Without that consensus, even wealthy countries like Belgium have a hard and messy time keeping it all together, not to mention Yugoslavia, and even the Czechs and Slovaks couldn't manage it. Europe-wide, there just isn't that type of consensus that would allow for the unified power structure necessary for Europe to become a real superpower. (There is arguably one area where it is a real superpower: world trade. And here, it has largely used its economic weight to crush third world export markets - hardly a positive development.)

If Europe and America have anything in common, it's their unconscionable and unfair treatment of third world exports like leather, cotton and so on, and the tools of their extortion are these two things that most run against the grain of laissez-faire: the protective tariff, and the domestic subsidy.

There's some positive movement coming up in the form of Fair Trade, but if Fair Trade eventually evolves, say, from advocating and encouraging consumer spending on more expensive coffee to wanting to artificially raise international coffee prices, I'm going to have to re-evaluate their usefulness in combating poverty. It's not the big producer with his tractors and pesticides who goes first when the already-insane overproduction is exarcebated. It's the little guy with his mule.

Hey Space Momus, maybe you can bring us Earthlings back some green cheese from the planet you are on.

Because nothing you say about politics makes any sense at all.

Oops, I replied to the wrong post. I guess I'm too drunk off the blood of the poor and downtrodden and high off of oil fumes to pick the right post...

No worries, and hey, I can sympathise with that.

Integration and militarisation, if they are forthcoming, aren't necessarily going to serve just the interests of people who want us to start duking it out with the United States. Gods know the French have been harping on about doing that for ages because they still feel they're a superpower. Certainly, we've seen America and Europe diverge on Iraq and the War on Terror, but mostly for very good reasons which have comparatively little to do with the status of European integration.

There are quite a lot Atlanticist europhiles, pro-NATO people, people who go for Conservative cosmopolitanism, and so on, who are hoping for both European integration and a better relationship between the Union and the USA. A large part of this is that even Old Europe is still essentially capitalist, and integration can work equally to liberalise the tired old Gallo-German system as it can work to regulate the more flexible economies of, for instance, Britain. Heck, the new member countries in the east are also essentially capitalist, and no wonder. They could even lead the way if they weren't still so insignificant and marginalised.

In other words, the same folks who might urge the US to lead by example and disarm itself are calling for the European Union to not lead by example, arm itself, and attempt to have two wrongs make a right.

-henryperri

Habermas idea seems like fighting fire with fire (in a Bush kind of way). We do not know what kind of joint military strategy the European Union would end up having. This is not the right way of doing it. We should "fight" with humane efforts, true collaboration and dissent against imperialism. The powers that start these wars, often in order to control oil or establish control for the empires, can never win the hearts and minds of the peoples. Such wars can never be truly won. They just continue and the killing continues. The grassroots peace movements must grow stronger. They can, I believe, change the minds of people all over the world and stop the escalating violent trend.

/Klas

I agree. Weak though the E.U. is, it has still succeeded diplomatically with its "carrot" policies, where America has signally failed with its "stick" policies. There are Eastern European countries which could have gone either way, which could have fallen back into aggressive dictatorship as many of the ex-Soviet countries have (Belarus, Turkmenistan etc.). That they didn't was because they wanted to grasp the carrot the E.U. was offering, namely membership. And they made real progress in terms of democracy and human rights. Desire to join the E.U. has also brought about real progress in these areas in Turkey. Whereas in Iraq...

I'd concur, too. Take the EU's handling of the Libanon crisis and it's quite obvious how different American priorities are from European priorities. The United States and Great Britain wanted to prolong the conflict so Israel could kick Hizbollah in the teeth so much that Hizbollah's military capability could be eliminated for the foreseeable future.

European diplomatic efforts, even when there were differences, were all about including Hizbollah and Syria and Iran in the talks. That's rational. Because of Israeli indecisiveness and military bungling, the moderate, pro-western government of Libanon is now severely weakened against Hizbollah, and European intervention probably helped in making Hizbollah pretty much invincible against all attempts at disarming it or ending the violence long-term, but the coup-counters should still give that one to Europe rather than America because the short-term violence has stopped.

I used to love Adorno. Minima Moralia is the one book of his I still browse. But I came to feel he was using Marxism as a sly way to be snobbish and superior. All his intellectual theories about music wind up 'proving' that German music (eg Schoenberg) is 'good', while non-German music (Stravinsky, Jazz) is 'bad'.

The older Adorno frquented the Darmstadt summer schools of the 1950s, where the new avant-garde (Boulez, Stockhausen) were developing their music. Stockhausen felt the old man was trying to force-read his theories onto their music. He famously accused Adorno of "trying to see a chicken in an abstract painting".

And Georg Lukács accused the wine merchant's snooty son of staying at the "Grand Hotel Abyss".

keith is brilliant.

http://www.asianbabecams.com/free.asp?Performer=Keith18

There is an urge in getting a new MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) or other kind of Nash Equilibrium. Ref. the glocal issue, maybe Hakim Bey and french dub band Brain Damage have the answer: There’s nowhere to go!
Kuja

there is a way out...we sort you out... me and the princess. in the harbour.
i can see the lighthouse from here. lovely jubbly....

my regards to the ladies at vodafone xania...aphrodite my special lady...

If you wouldn't hide your laziness behind an intellectual facade of 'remaining foreign' you would have read the brilliant German retorics of Peter Sloterdijk in his letter to Habermas, in which he declares Habermas' critical theory dead. And you'd probably agree with him on that.

And you would maybe have read Sloterdijks essay 'Regeln für den Menschenpark' that was the reason for the clash between the two. At least try to find a translation of it, because it scrutinizes greatly the decline of humanism and with that the bankrupcy of subjectivity-philosophies.

The downside of remaining foreign: you remain in the past.

Why do you assume that

a) I would agree with Sloterdijk and
b) Sloterdijk's arguments have put Habermas' "in the past"?

The Wikipedia's account (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sloterdijk) of the dispute doesn't make Sloterdijk's position sound very attractive:

"This [genetics] controversy began shortly after a symposium on Philosophy and Heidegger and was triggered by Sloterdijk’s essay Regeln für den Menschenpark (Rules for the Human Zoo). In this essay, Sloterdijk regards cultures and civilizations as "anthropogenic hothouses," installations for the cultivation of human beings; just as we have established wildlife preserves to protect certain animal species, so too ought we to adopt more deliberate policies to ensure the survival of Aristotle's zoon politikon. Breaking a German taboo on the discussion of genetic manipulation, Sloterdijk suggested that the advent of new genetic technologies required more forthright discussion and regulation of "bio-cultural" reproduction."

"The core of the controversy was not only Sloterdijk’s ideas, but also his use of the German words Züchtung (breeding, cultivation) and Selektion (selection), which recalled Nazi ideas. Sloterdijk rejected the accusation of Nazism, which he considered alien to his historical context. Still, the paper started a controversy in which Sloterdijk was strongly criticized, both for his apparent usage of a fascist rhetoric to promote Plato’s vision of a government with absolute control over the population, and for committing a non-normative, simplistic reduction of the bioethical issue itself. This second criticism was based on the vagueness of Sloterdijk’s position on how exactly society would be affected by this genetic development. After the controversy multiplied positions both against and in favor, Die Zeit published a vehement open letter from Sloterdijk to Jürgen Habermas, in which Sloterdijk accused Habermas of "criticizing behind his back" and defending a view of humanism (i.e. critical theory) which Sloterdijk deemed dead."

Because I've relocated overnight from Turkey to Holland I'll keep my reply short and just link to a text that explains quite clear what Sloterdijk was all about in his essay (as opposed to the shitty wikisummary that is somewhat biased on the scandal side - seeing the whole scandal was largely originating from work of bad reporters).

On the essay by Sloterdijk:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/5446/1859

And expading further on the reactions to the essay is this text, and the letter written by Sloterdijk addressing Habermas

http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/print.asp?editorial_id=10101

"The letter rises to its hyperbolic finale in which - on the grounds that Habermas chose to discuss his speech among colleagues and not directly with him - Sloterdijk accuses Habermas of performatively contradicting the premisses of his own discourse theory. If Habermas (of all people) achieves his polemical goals in such an underhand fashion, then what remains of the inheritance of the tradition of Frankfurt Critical Theory. Not much, says Sloterdijk: 'Critical theory is, on this Second of September, dead. She was long since bedridden, the sullen old woman, now she has passed away completely. We will gather at the grave of an epoch, to take stock, but also to think of the end of an hypocrisy. Thinking means thanking, said Heidegger. I say, rather, thinking means to heave a sigh of relief.' (Die Zeit, 9 September)"

His letter is effective in its hyperbolic style and is outright hilarious, an irregular thing for philosophical correspondences. I thought you'd like that. Besides the style, Sloterdijk is (also in other works) very interested in technology and antropology and a mix of both: also something I come across regularly on Click Opera. A third thing I thought you would find interesting is the important question how to emancipate people without power in a situation where humanism as a basis for emancipation has evaporated. Habermas' critical theory doesn't give much suggestions on that for the technologic future, accept when based on the past ideologies and old ideas of what to do and what not. Sloterdijks opens up thee debate for the future...

It sounds like Sloterdijk is good as a provocateur, but not much else. To declare Habermas "underhand" and the premise for critical theory "dead" just because H critiqued his essay in passing to colleagues rather than to S's face is patently absurd, and smacks of petty sour grapes rather than any sort of considered criticism of the Frankfurt School.

All this dreaming of a big, unified, centralized nation-state is all well and good in theory, much more difficult in practice. Besides the above-noted tendency for EU members to want to preserve their autonomy on any number of issues, we're rapidly running into the era where massive nation-states are physically impossible due to declining energy. You've covered Peak Oil in an earlier post; the modern nation-states, as they exist today, of the USA and China could not have been built without cheap coal, and they can't run without cheap oil. If you thought 'the most advanced nation in the world' had a pathetic response to the Katrina crisis, imagine that same response without gas-powered vehicles or air transportation. Or the maintenance of that infrastructure, that only gas-powered vehicles can provide. The massive energy dip before we get onto localized renewables is going to put a huge strain on critical industries and central governments to get it together; one workable option is more devolution of powers and decentralization / re-localization.

i like old pop kandy. ever so often with the fag he makes a lot of sense. that was a good comment, my son.

forgot to mention -- needless to say the idea of global power projection via a modernized military is also predicated on cheap energy, otherwise it's back to red army vs. blue army on a Risk board with muskets....

I don't get it. At one point you are arguing against the claim that there are universal truths and for extreme relativism, and then you suddenly seem to endorse someone who has argued pointedly for universality and against relativism... I guess you just do this because you like (some of) the conclusions. (And I also guess you haven't read a single article by Habermas himself, only reviews perhaps.)

der.

And I also guess you haven't read a single article by Habermas himself, only reviews perhaps.

I more or less say as much when I say I "made a circle around him" at university and "so far, so dull". I much prefer the big ideas of a Marcuse, or the moral guidance of a Fromm (my article against cell phones was actually very Erich Fromm, and I read tons of Fromm when I was younger).

As for the claims to universality, I think that's the one point that the Neo-Marxism of Habermas has in common with the Neomarxisme of You-Know-Who. And yes, I'm more of a relativist.

Have you read any Hans Magnus Enzensberger?

A bit; his libretti for Henze etc. I mention his brother Christian more.

(deleted comment)

i love her.

http://www.asianbabecams.com/free.asp?Performer=AproditeAngel

NOT YOU !!!..hahaha

pax bird.

Frankfurt school is fun and all, but I'm anxious to move onto some different perspectives (birmingham school and whatever school arjun appurandi falls into (he used to be provost at my university, the new school] as i move forward in my education in cultural studies...."looking for my penis: gay asian video porn" is one of them...

plus, i hate adorno because he practically killed walter benjamin. the poor man had to kill himself after adorno wouldn't let him have a post in an american university...

i mean, he killed himself after trying to flee from nazis, which wouldn't of happened if adorno let him come to the US in the first place.

but that's supposedly rumor.

and i totally spelled Arjun Appadurai wrong.

The problem with applying philosophy to what a united Europe should do is that it creates circumstances which do not exist, in order to hang an ideology from them.

A larger, more military Europe would have had no discernable effect in any of today's current conflicts, with the possible exception of being able to improve human rights standards for detainees in Afghanistan. It wouldn't realistically have been able to stop such conflicts without provoking a direct confrontation between them and the U.S. The idea that Europe would provoke a confrontation with the U.S. over Saddam's Iraq is frankly laughable.

Geopolitically, the end effect would still be the same, with the possible exception that Europe would be even more likely to get involved in peacekeeping these conflicts, to a larger degree. Indeed, the only scenario where having a larger military could conceivably benefit the people of Europe is if they needed that military either to defend themselves from attack, or to secure overseas resources. Currently, neither of these needs are essential. If Europe did need a military to secure overseas resources, there is a good chance that they would have to do so in a competitive, warlike environment, and would essentially just be buying time before another shortfall.

From Europe's standpoint, a better alternative is to address these potential shortfalls would be to focus on energy conservation, recycling, and renewable energy sources rather than on their military. Likewise, they should also work with their neighbors (i.e. Russia) to make sure there are no military threats on their borders.

Lastly, they don't need military clout to maximize their influence on U.S. foriegn policy. Rather, they need unity, self-reliance, a strong economy, and the simple willingness to say "no". Other things that would help is for them to put pressure on large global entities such as the U.N. and NATO, to reform in order to be more able to overrule U.S. vetos. Either reform these bodies, or threaten to form new ones. It's that simple.

All this is predicated on Europe actually being able to raise an army when the millions of unassimilated Muslims decide that things would be better off if the entire EU was under sharia law and all the Europeans were subjugated under that law.

Europe's problems will definitely be homebrewed in the next decade.

"All this is predicated on Europe actually being able to raise an army when the millions of unassimilated Muslims decide that things would be better off if the entire EU was under sharia law..."

I'm sorry, but I find that conclusion to be both uninformed and racist.

1> The great majority of Muslims in the EU do not want sharia... many fled from it.

2> Sharia in itself does not need to be anti-Western, and can peacefully coexist with Western law. There are Sharia courts in Singapore, for example.

But isn't not wanting Sharia law heresy and punishable by death? The millions of unassimilated Muslims in...France, let's say, they all really want to be French so badly that they refuse to learn French language, custom or social order and instead set up secret Muslim courts to indict, try and execute?

And isn't the institution of Sharia predicated on the subjugation of the world into the House of Islam? You can choose to be a Muslim or a slave under Muslims-I want to be able to say no and not die.

"But isn't not wanting Sharia law heresy and punishable by death?"

If that's the case, then the majority of Muslims in the UK are heretics. The rest pretty much just want the option of having a Sharia court available to them for family law issues, such as divorce, child custody, etc. Only a very small loony fringe want more than that, and they're adamantly opposed by their fellow Muslims.

"And isn't the institution of Sharia predicated on the subjugation of the world into the House of Islam?"

No. Very few Muslims believe such a thing... especially those in Western nations.

Wanting a unique court outside the system of the country one is in is pretty much refusing to assimilate. Why do the mosque leaders preach in Arabic for the institution of strict Sharia but preach in English to gullible Europeans about how peaceful Islam is? Why do Sharia-run states have executions of girls for accusations of adultery and "honor" killings? Is this the hallmark of the civilized society to want a court system that orders DEATH in what you call family law cases?

So if only a very few believe in such a thing, why do the leaders and clerics of the biggest and most prestigious institutions of Islam (mosques and universities) constantly call for the destruction of Israel, the murder of the Pontiff (HOW DARE HE CALL ISLAM VIOLENT!? KILL HIM!), the subjugation of the world under Islam and the destruction of America?

Is Islam really a religion of Peace if its leaders are foaming at the mouth for War?

Pardon my obtuseness, but I cannot understand how a religion dominated by violence and hatred can be compatible with any modern society. The statements you make do not match the actions of Muslims around the world.

"Wanting a unique court outside the system of the country one is in is pretty much refusing to assimilate."

So, by those standards, Native Americans are refusing to assimilate, despite a considerable amount of evidence to the contrary.

Ultimately, I guess it depends on what your view of assimilation is. If you mean "give up their religion, traditions, and culture", then yes... many Native Americans have refused to assimilate. If, however, you mean the effective straddling of cultures, then no, most Native Americans have assimilated.

"Why do the mosque leaders preach in Arabic for the institution of strict Sharia but preach in English to gullible Europeans about how peaceful Islam is?"

Since you brought this up, can you cite examples relevant to the UK which aren't obviously on the extremist fringe?

"Why do Sharia-run states have executions of girls for accusations of adultery and "honor" killings?"

And this is relevant to Muslims in the UK how? Are you sure that some of the Muslims in the UK haven't tried getting away from such a society?

Is this the hallmark of the civilized society to want a court system that orders DEATH in what you call family law cases?

"So if only a very few believe in such a thing, why do the leaders and clerics of the biggest and most prestigious institutions of Islam (mosques and universities) constantly call for the destruction of Israel, the murder of the Pontiff (HOW DARE HE CALL ISLAM VIOLENT!? KILL HIM!), the subjugation of the world under Islam and the destruction of America?"

The biggest and most prestigious institutions have called for the death of the Pope? Please... cite examples.

"Pardon my obtuseness, but I cannot understand how a religion dominated by violence and hatred can be compatible with any modern society."

Well, Christians are cannibals, and they get along okay. (I hear they eat the flesh of Jesus...)

A recent poll found that 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia Law for the UK. And the demand for it is rising.

There was a push to bring in Sharia courts in Canada for domestic disputes between Muslims. But a forceful campaign against it, headed mainly by Iranian refugee secularists, finally won the day.

I would never agree to be judged by a Sharia court, and neither would any of my gay friends. I believe all laws are man-made, including Sharia. That's why, if I think a law is bad or stupid, I should be free to campaign against it, and persuade my elected politicians to overturn it. But Sharia is predicated on the assumption that it's an eternal, incorrigible rulebook handed down by God, and that to dispute it is blasphemy.

"A recent poll found that 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia Law for the UK. And the demand for it is rising."

That's not entirely accurate. 40% want sharia law, but they didn't say that they wanted it to be the exclusive law... and, in fact, most UK Muslims opposed it. Those who do want it tend to want it as an alternative to traditional family courts, allowing Muslims to choose whether they want to interact with each other under Sharia law for handling matters such as divorce and child custody. In other words, Sharia law would have no effect on you whatsoever. It would simply allow people to handle family matters as is their custom -- IF both parties consent.

Really, such a result is far less polarizing than you might think. In the same poll, over 99% said the terrorists were wrong to attack the UK.

If more UK Muslims are in favor of Sharia than before, I would suggest that the reason is that the current conflicts are causing a greater degree of separation between the Muslim community and the rest of Britain. I would also suggest that there are strong cultural reasons involved. From their perspective, it has nothing to do with you.

Personally, I don't find this all that threatening. The U.S. has similar agreements for Native Americans, who have their own Indian tribal courts, which make legally binding decisions. There are also the Amish, who have a great deal of legal independence in handling their family disputes.

So, no... it's absolutely not about you or your gay friends being judged by a Sharia court. It's about a different culture than you wanting to have access to family law that respects that culture, if they so choose.

My best friend is gay, and he lives in Singapore with his boyfriend. The Sharia courts there have no effect on them whatsoever. The only laws they find overzealous are the ones that have existed for quite some time that belong to the Singaporean government, which likes to pass laws against things like chewing gum.

Case in point -- let's say that there was a family court that specialized in GLBT cases and all of their special circumstances. Would you think that was a good idea, and might be of value to people you know?

Ultimately, what we need is a more tolerant, accepting society. Rather than rail about the rights that someone else has, we should consider that their rights are rarely in direct competition with ours, and, in fact, tend to reflect our own rights as well. The more civil liberties your neighbor has, the better it usually is for you.

What we should be afraid of, frankly, are the fearmongers, who insist that our neighbors are out to kill us in our sleep, and take away all our liberties. They are the ones using these issues to promote themselves and their own personal agendas.

In short, I put it to you that Sharia courts, properly implemented in a Westernized nation, are a good sign of a more tolerant society.

The introduction of Sharia Law into the UK would be a disaster. It's absolutely incompatible with the principle that laws are made by the whole population electing the lawmakers by universal suffrage. The reason ordinary people fought and died for the right to vote was because they were subject to laws but were powerless to change them. My Old Labour heart feels Sharia Law is like a huge fuck-finger contemptuously gesturing at the sacrifices of the Chartists and the Suffragettes. Some of the advocates of Sharia actually admit as much, insisting that, in their theology, voting, and thereby colluding in man-made lawmaking, is a blasphemy against Allah and His unchangeable law. I want British Muslims to partake fully in the political debates in the UK, stand for parliament, and argue within it. This requires them to frame arguments addressed to non-Muslims in terms which don't presuppose the existence of Allah, because the issues decided there must be for all UK citizens, of all faiths and of none.

"Family Law" means children. Progressives have been engaged in a long battle to minimize the "lottery of life" effects of childhood; of how the parents' life horizons limit those of their children. Sharia Law would undo some of this. It's interesting to note that Jehovah's Witnesses have been stripped of the legal right to refuse blood transfusions to their children on religious grounds. Would you be in favour of giving them back this right, if it was administered by "Jehova's Witness" family courts?

Most important, the effect of Sharia Courts would be to maximize the influence of the most reactionary elements within Muslim communities, and marginalize the weakest.

I recommend you read this, by the Canadian-Iranian refugee Homa Arjomand, who led the successful campaign against Sharia Law in Canada:

http://www.nosharia.com/sp-homa-metrac-28-10-2004.htm

Muslims believe that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad was His Prophet. But there is no evidence for this belief. Nothing that happened in the 7th Century proves that this man was in communion with the divine, rather than simply deluded. People of all religions need to learn a measure of humility commensurate with this lack of evidence.

"The introduction of Sharia Law into the UK would be a disaster."

Perhaps you can clarify why Sharia family law courts would be a disaster in the UK, but aren't a disaster in Singapore, where the law is directly based on the British legal system.

"It's absolutely incompatible with the principle that laws are made by the whole population electing the lawmakers by universal suffrage."

Technically, so are Native American tribal courts -- except that the people of the United States have decided to allow it. The decisions actually made from such courts, however, are generally very similar in tone, if not the same.

"The reason ordinary people fought and died for the right to vote was because they were subject to laws but were powerless to change them."

I understand the strong emotional arguments against it, but on a practical level, giving people the choice of opting in to Sharia courts if both parties approve does nothing to strip others of their rights.

"I want British Muslims to partake fully in the political debates in the UK, stand for parliament, and argue within it. This requires them to frame arguments addressed to non-Muslims in terms which don't presuppose the existence of Allah..."

Very understandable indeed. However, Sharia family courts do not prevent this from happening, and may -- if implemented properly -- lead to more participation of Moslems in legal fields. In the U.S., you have to study a mix of both Western and Indian law to be a lawyer in Indian tribal courts, for example.

Obviously, the requirements for what constitutes certification for overseeing a Sharia family court are entirely the right of everyone in the UK to decide.

"Progressives have been engaged in a long battle to minimize the "lottery of life" effects of childhood; of how the parents' life horizons limit those of their children. Sharia Law would undo some of this."

I'd agree with you here. There are risks of this being the case, unless the law for the powers of Sharia Family Law courts were clarified to make sure existing policies were represented. Again, it's not that Sharia courts are universally bad, but that they can lead to injustices if their boundaries are not adequately defined.

"Jehovah's Witnesses have been stripped of the legal right to refuse blood transfusions . . . Would you be in favour of giving them back this right"

Frankly, I think some of the Blairite laws regarding families are a bit too invasive, although I agree with the goal. I'm not opposed to giving Jehovah's Witnesses the same rights to refuse transfusions that they have in the U.S., though I would want alternatives (http://www.gatago.com/sci/med/3445241.html) to be in place.

From my perspective, there are two ways that Sharia courts can come to pass in Britain.

1> A law is passed proactively that defines the courts and strictly defines their boundaries within the existing legal framework, in a way that it helps to diffuse tensions, while still promoting integration. Once passed, the law could serve as an example of how Sharia can coexist peacefully and progressively in a western society, and might help to inspire Muslims to seek a liberalization of laws elsewhere.

2> It takes place later, after a demographic shift, and more sweeping laws are forced through despite resistance, in a way that may tend to oppress others.

I would argue that example #2 is what most people are worried about, and what most politicians are arguing against, even if the issue at hand is example #1.

Lastly, the article you cited says:
"Sharia has deprived many women and girls of their basic rights in Canada. The numbers of girls who have been mutilated is high."

In Canada? No. It's outlawed there.

"Forced and arranged marriages are common."

In Canada? No. Every Canadian has a legal right to say no.

"Very young girls are forced to wear the veil. They are segregated from boys at a very young age."

As opposed to yamalukes, "Mormon underwear", or Catholic girl's schools.

"Parents are given the right to deprive their daughters of education..."

Actually, no. Canada requires that children either attend school, or be homeschooled to a monitored level of competency.

"Death is the penalty for girls who are found to be lesbian or who get pregnant before marriage."

...but not in Canada.

She is, in short, arguing against a straw man... which is what most people are arguing against on this issue.

There *ARE* legitimate arguments against Sharia family courts, but I don't see many people making them, or trying to find solutions. Instead, I see a hell of a lot of scaremongering and racebaiting out there, which is arguably more of a problem than any potential law itself.

One problem with Sharia Law as an "opt-in" alternative to the law of the land is that there could be strong social pressure to opt-in. Choosing to use the "apostate" or "infidel" law could be portrayed as "un-Islamic" by those who might do less well under secular law (fathers in custody battles, perhaps). The risk of coercion would also be a problem with the milder possibility of using the principles of Sharia Law in some sort of conciliation process.

Another problem with Sharia Law would be interpretation - whose interpretation would be used? Sunni? Shiite? Wahabi? Bin Laden's? Whichever judge you happened to get? And the principle that the gates of interpretation are closed - that the decisions of past centuries are binding today - would enshrine many un-progressive practices in our brave new two-tier legal system.

A further problem, as pointed out above, is that our law can be changed through democratic means. If you want to change religious law, you're pretty much stuck with the L. Ron Hubbard approach - start your own cult!

Where would Sharia law end? Would apostacy be punishable by death? Even "family law" covers a wide range of issues.

Islamic law has not been tested against the UK's Human Rights Act (it's far from certain it would be compatible), and in the US, the constitutional prohibition on establishment of religion would be an obstacle.

And for someone to be regulated (however "voluntarily") by different laws, depending on who they are, is repugnant to the principle of equality under the law.

This is a Really Bad Idea.

--
notmyopinion!

I would agree that these are issues that would have to be dealt with in the making of the law. However, similar issues have already been dealt with successfully in Singapore. The goal would be to create a system which, although somewhat seperate, is respectful of the conventional law on its decisions, and demurs to conventional law on certain laws and issues.

In short, the devil is definitely in the details, and it would take a significant legal study of Singapore and other countries with a mix of traditional law with Sharia to determine all the potential pitfalls and avoid them or mitigate them as best as possible.

I have been exposed as a fraud for my postmodernist wordplay on a modernist philosophy.

Neomarxisme is pro-business and anti-militarist

I don't know if I am "anti-business" but I don't know if I am "pro-Business" either. My point usually is that if you want to see Japanese culture be interesting - at least in the way we have found it fascinating in the past - you have to have some manner of robust economic conditions that the current Japanese monopoly capitalist system can no longer provide. Also, if Japan is to "matter" as a counterbalancing force against the U.S. in the way you want it to, it has to fix its economic base, and almost everyone agrees that goal will require taking on some more free-market policies. Or doing something other than just maintaining the feudalistic status quo.

For instance, Japan used its new clout to challenge imperialism and torture

Ha. How can you read the conservative party line in Japan and come to that conclusion? Opposition to the United States on the Japanese right-wing is more about restoring WWII-era honor than Abu Ghraib.

W. David Marx (aka Marxy)

i quite like adorno's "stars" where he talks about authoritarian irrationalism, and the psychodynamic parallels between new-age/occult/astrology stuff and fascism, ignoring inconvenient facts, the poor tolerance of ambiguity, the need for a system, the championing of the emotions over reason, and the need for an uneducated minority to feel they have special access to knowledge and power.

but i have to say i do find wading through all the neo-marxist stuff a bit soupy...

Interesting post. I read some American geezer a while ago claiming that the Frankfurt School were responsible for all the ills of the world in general, and for the film of "V For Vendetta" in particular; I think this shows their importance.

I do not really buy into the idea that the EU should acquire an army and transform itself into a state. In doing that, it would lose what makes it a unique actor in the world today and betray what has been one of human history's most uniquely positive projects. I do not really see what a big chunky European army would have done to stop the Iraq war - threaten to drop nuclear weapons on American cities? send troops to fight the US army? Nerrr, I think not. The day of the army and the state is coming to an end, and the EU (not a state and having no army) is the future.

I pity said American geezer. V For Vendetta had an incredibly romantic and naive conception of revolution, yes, obviously. Heck, when you get right down to it, it's not like V had anything worthwhile to say except for this: dictatorships are bad, and everyone holding hands together and singing is good. Big whoop. At some point it maybe should have occurred to this fine critic of movie entertainment that a flick about a knife-throwing psychopath in a Guy Fawkes mask just might be something other than a scathing and sophisticated social critique.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The real Neo-Marxism

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

can the monolithic state even survive?

Re: can the monolithic state even survive?

and your little army, too

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Local man sometimes is

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

stars forever

no subject

no subject