Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 21:20:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: SCIABRRC-AT-ACFcluster.NYU.EDU
Subject: Just a comment...


     Paul is absolutely correct... this is not a discussion group on Hayek. 
And while he believes that "Hayek is [my] chosen vehicle for attacking
Marxism," I only wish to point out that my purpose is not to attack Marxism. 
It is to get at "the truth."  I do not believe that Hayek has a monopoly on
truth, anymore than I believe that Marx had a monopoly on it.  I just believe
that each tradition can LEARN from the other.
	On this basis, let me say, in brief, that I, and Lavoie have NOT chosen
to underemphasize Hayek's pre-1955 writings.  I just believe that no social
theorist should be analyzed on the basis of specific propositions ABSTRACTED
from the totality of their work.  Such has been the problem with many in the
history of Marxism... those who have emphasized the "interpretive" dimension of
Marx to the detriment of the "structuralist" dimension... those who are
economic determinists, etc.  In each case, a "school" of Marxism has taken a
single thread from the rich cloth of Marx's work, and woven a one-sided view of
what he "really" said.  So too, I do not believe that focusing on single
strands of Hayek's thought can do Hayek justice.
	One last observation... no one said that computers can't help in the
ability to facilitate the flow and access and use of information.  But EVERY
example that Paul points to - airlines, banks, etc. - is PART of a LARGER
market.  Computer databases CAN be used within the context of markets.  It is
when the market is ELIMINATED that such use is rendered static and irrelevant. 
				- Chris
=================================================Dr. Chris M. Sciabarra
Visiting Scholar, N.Y.U. Department of Politics
INTERNET:  sciabrrc-AT-acfcluster.nyu.edu
  BITNET:  sciabrrc-AT-nyuacf
=================================================

     ------------------