Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:52:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Derrida



I think there is something to James' skam against Derrida, although I
don't think that it's the self-perception of the hardworking ruling cass
that puts in endless hours making big bucks on bond trades, etc. Or of the
directors and officers of GM or Microsoft. I think Derrida appeals to the
ex-rad segment of intelligentsia who have given up on real engagement with
the world because of the defeat of the movements of the 30s and 60s-80s
and rationalize this by deciding that they might as well have fun if they
cannot change the world. I don't take this to reflect on D's personal
politics, which I understand to be quite progressive.

James is wrong to slag off Hayek as old hat. Apart from the fact that
possessive individualism is very much "in" at least in America, Hayek's
interest is less as a political philosopher of a quirky sort of
libertarianism--quirky because H ended up defending a social welfare net,
national health care, and many other non-L positions, and did not base his
views on natural rights, which he thought were ridiculous, but on
basically utilitarian arguments about the lack of a better alternative, as
he saw it--than in his position as a political economist.

Hayek's lasting contribution here is in his critique of planned socialism.
This does not depend on possessive individualism, despite thetitle of his
key work in the area, Individualism and the Economic Order. It depends on
arguments about the epistemological limits of planning, essentially that
the planners can't know enough to plan rationally, and one some plausible
propositions about the incentive structure of planning. These arguments
have to be defeated in detail if planneds ocialism is to be made plausible
and cannoy be brushed off with a label. I don't care to get into that
discussion right now.

I realize that Hayek is less fun to read than Derrida. He's all work and
no play. But he's a serious thinker with a very iomportant challenge to
Marxuists who believe in planned socialism.

--Justin

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, James Heartfield wrote:

> In message <971123142513_1604031801-AT-mrin54.mail.aol.com>,
> LeoCasey-AT-aol.com writes
> >In a message dated 97-11-22 10:17:42 EST, James writes:
> >
> ><< What Derrida et al do express is a kind of self-perception of a ruling
> > class that elevates play over work, that values questions of identity
> > and difference, that sees things in terms of consumption rather than
> > production, and that has abandoned the sense of mission that was so
> > important to its predecessors (the end of grand narratives). (I'll back
> > off from slagging Bordieu, though, as I'm less confident of my ground)
> >  >>
> >
> >I have much respect for what I have seen as the serious, intellectually deep
> >contributions of James to this list, but I must say that this I find this
> >statement to be characteristic of the political space where the sectarian
> >fades into the absurd. One starts from a Manichaean world in which there is
> >the one true revolutionary faith and its various counter-revolutionary
> >opponents, and attempts to show how every expression outside of the one true
> >faith is an expression of the ruling class, no matter how it presents itself.
> >Indeed, the greatest vitroil is reserved for those closest in the political
> >spectrum, since they are the imposters, the devil appearing in the form of
> >the angel. Thus, social democracy becomes, in the Third Period, social
> >fascism.
> >
> >Just where is this ruling class, with its love for play and the politics of
> >difference, which has found in Derrida its expression? Maybe I have missed it
> >because I lack the insight of the elect. But, for me, this statement is an
> >expression of hallucinatory politics.
> >
> >Leo Casey
> 
> I would have said that it was a compliment to Derrida to point out that
> he articulates in an intelligent and innovative way the real conditions
> of contemporary capitalist society. I would rather read Derrida or
> Foucault than Hayek, because Hayek is old hat, like the possessive
> individualism that he championed. I don't take the view that one should
> simply diss other writers, but you learn from them. That is what
> critique is. I began this by saying that Derrida and Foucault were the
> contemporary equivalents of Smith and Ricardo. As to their subjective
> political positions, I take all that with a pinch of salt. In Britain
> the chief government propagandist is an ex-communist party member and
> the Overseas Development Minister was a founder of the Time To Go
> campaign for British withdrawal from Ireland. I prefer to judge them on
> what they are saying and doing now, than any political affiliations they
> once had or even allude to today.
> 
> Farternally
> -- 
> James Heartfield
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---