The Second Death of Jürgen Habermas

Postscript: On Deliberative Democracy

TL;DR

Habermas died twice: first in the slow rightward drift from critical theory to procedural liberalism, stretching from his abandonment of the labour theory of value in the 1970s through his endorsement of NATO’s Kosovo intervention and his support for the EU Constitution. The second death came in October 2023, when he co-signed a statement justifying Israel’s assault on Gaza. That statement was not a betrayal of his discourse ethics. It was their logical conclusion: a universalism that had always stopped at the borders of the Euro-Atlantic order. Against this, the Fourth International tradition — Mandel’s economic grounding, Bensaïd’s strategic reason, Löwy’s ecosocialist romanticism — offers what Habermas never could: theory built in direct confrontation with the resistance of the world, iterating through organised struggle rather than refining itself in isolation. Marxism is a theoretical practice, or it is nothing.

Jürgen Habermas died on 14 March 2026, aged 96, in Starnberg: Bavaria’s richest area; the lakeside home of the rich, the royals and the world's most famous living philosopher. The eulogies came quickly, and predictably. Friedrich Merz called him a “beacon in a stormy sea.” The Guardian mourned a “voice of reason.” Jacobin, ever reliable at the threshold of its own limitations, described the left as “poorer” for his passing.

All of them are wrong about what they are mourning.

Habermas had already died twice. The first death was slow, stretching across four decades of retreat from the theoretical territory his early work had opened. The second death came in October 2023, when he co-signed a statement on Gaza that revealed, with surgical clarity, the geographical limits of his universalism. That statement did not contradict his life’s work. It completed it.

The Promise That Was Never Kept

Begin with what was genuinely there. When Habermas joined Theodor Adorno’s research team in 1956, his early work carried a critical charge that deserved serious engagement. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962) was a real achievement: a materialist account of how the bourgeois public sphere emerged from specific class conditions in the eighteenth century and was then systematically dismantled by corporate concentration and state administration. Refeudalization, he called it. The replacement of rational-critical debate by passive consumption, of active citizens by manipulated audiences. Anyone who has sat through a Labour Party consultation exercise or watched a trade union bureaucracy manage down a live dispute will recognise the phenomenon immediately.

But notice what is already happening in that framing. The disease is diagnosed as a communicative failure rather than a structural one. The bourgeois public sphere is not exposed as a class instrument, as the institutional form through which capital exercises ideological hegemony. It is mourned as an ideal inadequately realised. The nostalgia is doing ideological work long before Habermas becomes aware of it.

By 1973, in Legitimation Crisis, the shift is fully visible. Where Ernest Mandel’s Late Capitalism (published the year before) had grounded the post-war expansion in the labour theory of value, in the third technological revolution, in the structural necessity of state military spending to maintain profitability, Habermas had reconfigured the same terrain entirely. For Habermas, the central crisis of advanced capitalism was not economic but administrative and cultural: a “legitimation deficit,” a “steering problem.” The state could no longer manage the contradictions between its economic functions and its need to maintain popular consent. Capital accumulation had become “politicised,” and that politicisation had displaced class conflict into a bureaucratic problem of social integration.

Elegant. Useful as far as it goes. And fundamentally disorienting.

Because the moment you accept that the core contradiction of capitalism is a legitimation problem rather than an exploitation problem, you have changed the political question entirely. The question is no longer: how do the exploited classes organise to expropriate the expropriators? It becomes: how can we design institutions that generate sufficient communicative legitimacy to maintain social integration? Reform the public sphere. Restore deliberative conditions. Wait for the better argument to win.

This is not a theoretical error. It is a class position.

What the FI Said, and Why It Mattered

The Fourth International was not indifferent to Habermas. The debate mattered precisely because his framework was seductive: sophisticated, anti-positivist, genuinely attentive to cultural and communicative forms that vulgar Marxism had dismissed. The temptation was to take the insights and leave the conclusions. Mandel, Bensaïd, and Löwy understood, with varying degrees of sharpness, why that operation couldn’t be performed cleanly.

Mandel’s critique was economic in the first instance. The welfare state and Keynesian management that Habermas theorised as producing new “legitimation” pressures were, for Mandel, something more straightforward: attempts to chatten class conflict, to conceal the objective contradictions of the system, to extend ideological regimentation across the whole superstructure. The class compromise was always fragile. The moment the rate of profit turned, as Mandel had predicted it would in the long-wave analysis, the fragility would become visible. And so it proved. The political crisis of the 1970s, the austerity offensives of the 1980s: none of it was a “steering failure.” It was capital reasserting its imperatives. Mandel’s full archive of political writings remains an essential corrective: Ernest Mandel at the Marxists Internet Archive.

Daniel Bensaïd engaged Habermas most directly, most polemically, and most productively. In Le Pari mélancolique (1997), he contrasted what he called “strategic reason” with Habermas’s “communicative reason,” and the contrast was not merely philosophical. Habermas’s entire project rested on a linear, progressive model of historical time: the “unfinished project of modernity,” reason proceeding through argument, modernity always potentially redeemable through better communication. Against this, Bensaïd drew on Benjamin and Bloch to insist on the “discordance of time,” the way history ruptures, the way the past lives in the present as a resource for action rather than as a burden to be transcended. Revolution is not the endpoint of a communicative process. It is an event. A break. It cannot be generated by discourse ethics; it can only be prepared by organisation.

The practical consequence was clear. Activists seduced by Habermas’s framework fall into what Bensaïd called the “social illusion”: the belief that movements can change the world without taking power, that deliberative participation substitutes for strategic accumulation of force, that the better argument eventually wins without someone willing to enforce the winning. This leads either to a stoic rhetoric of resistance, holding out without any theory of victory, or to a theology of the miracle, waiting for spontaneous eruption to do the work that organisation must do. Neither is a strategy. Both are ways of not having one. Bensaïd’s writings are archived at danielbensaid.org.

Michael Löwy added the ecological dimension that neither Mandel nor Bensaïd had fully developed. Habermas’s commitment to the “project of modernity” reproduced capitalist productivism at the level of values: the assumption that technique and industrial expansion were essentially neutral, merely needing to be “oriented” by democratic deliberation. Löwy’s revolutionary romanticism insisted instead on recovering the pre-capitalist critique of modernity, the sense that what was being lost in industrial capitalism was not merely a communicative ideal but a metabolic relationship with the natural world that capital had ruptured. The ecological crisis is not a legitimation problem. It is a material consequence of how capitalist production organises the relationship between human society and the rest of nature. No theory of communicative action addresses that.

These were not academic disputes. When the EU Constitution debate came to a head in 2005, Habermas urged his “French friends” to vote Yes, framing the treaty as a victory for Enlightenment progress and a necessary counterweight to US hegemony. Bensaïd replied directly in International Viewpoint, exposing what the treaty actually was: a constitutional entrenchment of neoliberal social policy, a legal mechanism that would make it practically impossible to expand welfare provision, a document whose fundamental purpose was to lock in the European class settlement in favour of capital. That rebuttal, “Why Our German Friends Are Wrong on EU Constitution”, remains essential reading. The Left’s “No of solidarity,” as Bensaïd called it, was not a retreat into nationalist parochialism. It was a recognition that “communicative legitimacy” had been weaponised: that Habermas had ended up providing intellectual cover for the Euro-compatible consensus of the liberal right and the liberal left, both working to exclude the popular movements that had filled the European Social Forums and marched against the Iraq war.

And the Historikerstreit? Yes, Habermas was right to oppose the conservative historians’ relativisation of the Holocaust. Yes, his intervention mattered. But his framing of Nazism as a unique historical aberration, severed from the structural crises of inter-imperialist competition and the systemic logic of capital in extremis, allowed post-war German society to reckon with its guilt while leaving intact the economic and state structures that had produced it. Liberal anti-fascism. Better than fascism. Not enough.

The Statement That Ended the Argument

In October 2023, Habermas co-signed “Principles of Solidarity” with Rainer Forst and Nicole Deitelhoff. The statement affirmed Germany’s “historical responsibility” toward Israel, condemned Hamas, and justified Israel’s military campaign in principle against what was by then visibly a genocidal assault on Gaza’s civilian population. The philosophical response from 109 scholars was unsparing.

Their critique was not political point-scoring. It was philosophical. If Habermas’s discourse ethics require that all affected parties be treated as morally equal participants, that “human dignity for all” serves as the foundation of communicative reason, then a statement that weighted Israeli security against Palestinian survival was not merely politically objectionable. It was a self-refutation. The universalism collapsed at exactly the point where it was most needed.

This is what we mean by the second death. Not a late deviation. The culmination.

Because Habermas’s universalism had always been geographically bounded. His “constitutional patriotism” was a West German and then a European project. His defence of the public sphere was a defence of the Euro-Atlantic democratic order. His legitimation theory described crises of administration in advanced capitalist states, not the structural violence of colonialism or the systematic dehumanisation of populations outside the Habermasian public sphere’s effective reach. The campesino in Gaza, like the campesino in Brazil, was never a full participant in the ideal speech situation. They were objects of humanitarian concern at best. Subjects of history, never.

The 2023 statement made visible what had always been there: a universalism that was actually a particularism with better vocabulary.

What Theory Must Be

There is a lesson here, and it is not the triumphalist one. This is not an occasion to dismiss everything Habermas contributed. The critique of refeudalization remains useful. The analysis of how media capitalism colonises the lifeworld, of how algorithmic platforms fragment shared reality, describes something real. The insistence that Marxism must engage with culture, communication, and democratic forms rather than reducing everything to economics was a necessary corrective to the scholastic materialism that had calcified much of the mid-century left. We do not have to pretend otherwise.

But the lesson of the Habermas trajectory is a lesson about what theory is for and where it must be made.

Theory that develops in isolation from organised struggle becomes theory in service of its own reproduction. It refines itself. It becomes more sophisticated, more nuanced, more capable of incorporating critique. And in the process, it loses the only thing that makes it Marxist in any meaningful sense: the commitment to the unity of theory and practice, the insistence that ideas are not just interpretations of the world but instruments for changing it.

Mandel understood this. He built his theoretical work in direct conversation with the practical questions facing the Fourth International: how to orient toward the long wave, how to understand the colonial revolution, how to analyse the bureaucratic workers’ states without capitulating to either Stalinist apologetics or Cold War liberalism. The theory was inseparable from the organising, from the endless meetings and pre-conference bulletins and international disputes about programme. Bensaïd understood this too: his insistence on “strategic reason” was not a philosophical preference but a political necessity, the recognition that activists who cannot think strategically become fuel for other people’s projects. Löwy’s ecosocialism emerged from decades of solidarity work in Latin America, from actual contact with movements that were asking real questions about what kind of socialism could survive on a finite planet.

This is what we mean when we say Marxism must be a theoretical practice. Not theory about practice. Not theory that periodically condescends to acknowledge that practice exists. Theory built in the 9pm meeting when the agenda has dragged on for two hours and someone asks a question that none of the existing frameworks can answer, and the honest response is to go back to the texts with that question alive in your hands. Theory that iterates: that improves not by accumulating citations but by encountering the resistance of the world and being changed by it.

Habermas was a brilliant man who built an impressive theoretical system and spent thirty years watching it explain away the need for the revolution that his early work had been trying to understand. Kosovo was not a betrayal. It was a conclusion. Gaza was not a lapse. It was the system working as designed.

The second death of Jürgen Habermas is the death of a certain kind of left intellectualism: the kind that builds from the seminar room outward, that treats organised workers as objects of analysis rather than agents of their own emancipation, that mistakes the sophistication of the description for the adequacy of the response. We should acknowledge what it contributed. We should be clear about what killed it.

Then we should get back to work.

---

Postscript: On Deliberative Democracy

Since publication, the most substantial challenge to this piece has come from readers pointing to Habermas’s practical legacy: the global Deliberative Wave. The OECD now counts over 300 citizens’ assemblies and participatory institutions worldwide. Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly delivered referendums on marriage equality and the repeal of the Eighth Amendment. France convened a Citizens’ Convention for Climate. Scotland has its own. The argument: to dismiss Habermas as a retreat into the seminar room is to miss that his theoretical DNA is being actively built into democratic institutions right now.

Fair. It deserves a serious answer.

The Irish assemblies work. Ordinary citizens given time, information, and decent facilitation consistently produce more courageous collective judgements than the professional politicians who have captured the formal institutions. That’s empirically demonstrated and it matters. I’m not dismissing it.

But look at what they deliberate on. Marriage equality. Abortion rights. End-of-life policy. Biodiversity. These are questions where there is no direct conflict with capital accumulation, questions the professional political class had become too cowardly or too captured to resolve on their own. Significant reforms, every one of them. Not one touches the structure of ownership. No citizens’ assembly in the OECD’s catalogue has recommended the expropriation of landlords, a wealth tax with enforcement teeth, workers’ control over investment decisions, or the socialisation of the banks. Not one.

The French Citizens’ Convention for Climate is the most instructive case, and it cuts in an uncomfortable direction. Macron convened it, accepted its mandate, watched 150 randomly selected citizens produce genuinely ambitious proposals for decarbonisation, and then systematically diluted every recommendation that touched the interests of French capital before anything went near a referendum. The deliberative process worked exactly as designed. The structural power worked harder. The Scottish Climate Assembly filed its proposals. The Scottish Government noted them with respect and continued its record of missing every climate target it has ever set.

The OECD’s enthusiasm is itself worth pausing over. International capital does not fund and celebrate institutions that threaten it. John Dryzek’s work is serious and his practical contributions are real. But deliberative systems theory as a complete account of democratic transformation operates within a given horizon of what is possible. The question Bensaïd was always asking is: who sets that horizon, and how do you change it?

One concession the original article should have made more clearly: Bensaïd’s critique of the “social illusion” is a critique of deliberativism as a complete theory of emancipation, not a dismissal of deliberative forms as such. Workers’ councils are deliberative. Soviets are deliberative. The revolutionary tradition has always involved collective reasoning under conditions of democratic participation. The FI has never been against people deciding together how to govern their lives. It has been against the claim that better communication is what stands between us and structural transformation; against the displacement of the question of power by the aesthetics of procedure.

The deliberative democracy movement, at its best, is recovering something real from the wreckage of representative democracy’s capture by capital. At its worst, it is providing sophisticated legitimation for the existing order: proof that the system can incorporate popular participation without changing what the participation decides. Habermas’s Gaza statement is, in miniature, the same problem. The ideal speech situation produced a statement that weighted the security of one state against the survival of an entire population. The procedure was impeccable. The conclusion was a catastrophe.

Habermas provided tools. They are genuinely useful within a bounded domain. The error was treating the tools as a theory of liberation.

---