Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 13:37:04 -0400 (EDT) From: SCIABRRC-AT-ACFcluster.NYU.EDU Subject: MARX30.;1 I think Paul and I are nearing "critical mass" once again as we have on several other issues in the past. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree. I am sorry that Paul seems so offended at even the suggestion that somebody OUTSIDE Marxism might be able to make a useful contribution to the radical project. I guess he won't be among the critics who PRAISE my forthcoming book. In any event, I never said that "we must take the good with the bad" concerning Hayek. I've said instead, that there is much density to Hayek's work, and NOTHING he says should be abstracted from that density. This does not mean that what he says is wrong; it just means that if we take the "impossibility of one mind" thesis as his ONLY criticism, we are attacking "strawmen." I have also never said that knowledge is "irreducibly subjective." Rather, it is a conjunction of BOTH objective and subjective qualities <let's be dialectical now>. I never shifted my ground with regard to the issue of computerization. Hayek NEVER saw computerization as the ESSENCE of the problem. It is the market that supplies the context within which any data has any meaning. In the utopian world of Paul Cockshott, the market is gone, prices are gone, and economic calculation is suddenly "solved" by advanced computer technology. Hayek would say that the result will be calculational CHAOS... and thus far, history is on Hayek's side, not Paul's, not Marx's. - Chris ============================================================Dr. Chris M. Sciabarra Visiting Scholar, N.Y.U. Department of Politics INTERNET: sciabrrc-AT-acfcluster.nyu.edu BITNET: sciabrrc-AT-nyuacf ============================================================= ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005