From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:13:12 -0000 (GMT) Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_global_meta-narratives_no_local_narratives_yes...?= Eric I don't have time to reply to this at the moment - but just to clarify - when I read the text referred to originally I was bemused by the thought that 'capital' and its supporting ideologies do not constitute a grand-narrative... On a side note - on the growing strength of the left at moment - what war in recent history as had demonstrations prior to it even beginning? (400K people in October in London) regards steve > Steve, > > Maybe I just feeling perverse tonight, but reading your posting and > thinking about the recent libertarian exchange, I'd like to offer these > thoughts. > > If you really think about a conservative libertarian like Hayek, I > think you need to acknowledge something. Sure the man was an incredible > political reactionary in many ways, but his economic thought was not > entirely based upon make-believe. Otherwise, he wouldnt have created > the influence he currently wields. > > At the heart of his thought (and I am the first to admit I am no > economist) is the notion that knowledge and decision-making in a market > situation act as a kind of spontaneous order, like language, and one > that no individual or group has sufficient knowledge of in a timely > enough fashion to intervene efficiently in order to command the > economy. > > There is little question that the Soviet and Chinese economies were > failures at this, and, although I agree there are many different ways > to explain it, it is necessary to admit the left has lost credibility > because of this and also because of the reign of terror that occurred > under this regime. The left needs to find a way to argue more > persuasively than it has about such matters in order to win back the > trust of ordinary citizens who no longer believe it offers a meaningful > alternative. > > I believe that Hayek's idea of spontaneous orders finds some rapport > with both N&H's idea of Empire and Lyotard's own notions of > complexification and incredulity towards metanarratives. In my own > perverse reading of postmodernism, as I have previously stated, I see > it as a sublime event in the Kantian sense where reason attempts to > apply the concept (a metanarrative) to the growing complexification and > fails; but thereby enthusiastically realizes with awe and respect a > reality too complex for mere understanding. At the heart of > postmodernism is a new paralogical sense of the Real; a kind of > metaphysical feeling of >surprise at a world that has become infinite again and in which we are >all participants. > > What I am arguing is that libertarians have been more realistic about > the complex nature of global economies, but nave insofar as they > believed this signified a triumph of freedom and democracy. Instead, > as we are currently witnessing, these spontaneous orders are just as > dystopian as totalitarian command economies. All along they were > simply the road to serfdom by another means. > > The value of Lyotard is that he recognized both ends of this spectrum; > the growth of complexification and development and the continuing need > for justice in the face of this very complexification. In my reading, > Lyotard is thus a kind of left libertarian and not the neo-conservative > Habermas argues him to be at all. He is certainly not on the same side > of the political fence as Hayek, but rather turns Hayek on his head, > making a similar argument about capitalism that Hayek did about >socialism. > > I think at the theoretical level, complexity makes the kind of > metanarratives the left favors harder to sustain - given the various > orders of complexity - is history really just about creating global > state socialism? (and in what form, does anyone honestly know?) Lyotard > seems more honest about these matters to me. > > There is also the question of metanarratives at the practical level of > strategy and tactics. Here it is necessary to ask - what is the > metanarrative of resistance that can currently be sustained? I still > can't see any unified international proletarian labor movement, rather > a patchwork of resistances, operating complexly alongside multiple > plateaus. > > I personally would like to see a greater unity and strength within > these resistance movements, but I don't think postmodernism should be > blamed simply because the critical watchman pointed out to us the > complexity of what currently confronts us. > > This is what needs to be more deeply understood as nomads halt their > transgressive caravans, pitch their tents, and wait for the encroaching > night to fall. > > eric
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005