File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0301, message 125


From: "Eric" <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net>
Subject: Ken MacLeod
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:10:46 -0600


I confess I never heard about MacLeod until the recent discussion about
him at this site.  Intrigued, I got his first book "The Star Fraction"
out of the library yesterday and I was surprised to read the following
comments in his "Introduction to the American Edition":

"One constraints on the possible arrangements of a future society was
indicated by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. He argued that
private property was essential to industrial civilization: "without
property, no exchange; no exchange, no prices; no prices, no way of
telling whether any given project is worthwhile or a dead loss."  Given
that every attempt to abolish the market on a large scale has led o the
collapse of industry, his Economic Calculation Argument seems
vindicated.  Unfortunately, there's no reason why the Economic
Calculation Argument and the Materialist Conception of History couldn't
both be true. What if capitalism is unstable, and socialism is
impossible?"

What was so surprising about this is the way it echoed so precisely
exactly what I was attempting to say in my most recent posts.  

It has been encouraging for me to see the international scope of the
protests against the war this weekend and coupled with the recent
upsurge of populist movements in Latin America, the reluctance of Turkey
and Jordan to allow their countries to be used as military bases may
portend that a serious shifting is occurring within the Global Scene.
Yes, certainly, capitalism obviously remains unstable, but what is the
alternative?

I say this, not to argue cynically ala Thatcher that there is none; nor
even to suggest it is impossible, but to raise the question so that we
can think more concretely about such things. Isn't this the real issue
today? 

For all its vaunted efficiency and innovation, capitalism remains unjust
and like a lethal goldfish may 'piss in its drinking water' to the
extent that its 'civilization' is no longer able to maintain itself. On
the other hand, how do we know that legitimate demands for justice and
economic redistribution may not simply lead us into new tyrannies. 

I have been reading quite a bit of Orwell lately, not the famous Orwell
or "Animal Farm" and "1984" but the earlier Orwell of the essays,
journalistic writings and the other novels.  He made the following
comment discussing Hayek:

"In the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a good deal
of truth.  It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being
said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently
democratic, but, on the contrary gives to a tyrannical minority such
powers as the Spanish Inquisition never dreamt of."

Gaia save us from the enactment of such powers and also from Das
Homeland Security Act.

eric


  



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005