I wrote and Daniel edited:
>>Yup. Though I'm not sure why arguing against such a >totalizing concept
>makes his political theory egregious
>>..... >I'm definitely no Maoist, but again I don't see >how Hayek's arguments
>>against contructivist rationalism translate into a >"class-position"
>>that is inherently anti-democratic. Perhaps this is another one of those
>>things that one either sees or doesn't.
Daniel replied:
>Perhaps so, or perhaps it would be easier if one had a nuanced
>understanding of the concept, method and ontology of "totalization." And
>of "structure." And of "immanence and nominalism."
I guess "one" refers to me? So lemme get this straight: I don't see what you
see in Hayek (I am in error) because I don't have a nuanced
concept, method and ontology of totalization, structure, immanence
and nominalism? That's quite a rhetorical pirouette.
>Or do "grand" things like (private)property relations and capital
>accumulation not exist?
Of course they do. You seem to think that since I'm not
on the capitalism is the ultimate evil bandwagon that
I'm some cruel neo-con. [watch those binarisms, Daniel -- oops
more of that "pomo" lingo]
And is it true that *any* structural interventions
>are baleful, if not "terror" mechanisms?
You should know that I would never answer a question that
requires such a totalizing/acontextual/transhistorical
answer. I will say, however, "one" is dreaming if they
think the effects of such macro-level
interventions can be controlled.
I'm not advocating
>"totalization," but I also dont take seriously the ("vulgar postmodern"?)
>use of it as a scapegoat for the inherent ills of the Enlightenment and
>socialist planning.
You mean like the "vulgar" critical view that market
formations are intrinsically destructive and unjust?
And how is "social justice" a totalizing concept
>anyway? Because its "bigger" than "individual" justice? Because its about
>"positive," not "negative" liberties?
For starters, it ignores issues of context, the "knowledge
problem," and unintended consequences. I would be (a little) more
open to it if it were pluralized -- social justice*s*.
Or is the government just on your
>back too much? Or am I wrong, and there are no such thing as classes (or
>even masses), but only "individuals."
You're reaching, Daniel.
>Here is my math, and my last word on Hayek:
[snip of Daniel's caricature of Hayek]
It really bothered me too when I realized I could no longer
trot out such facile condemnations of market formations
and some liberal/conservative thinkers.
dls
"The true voyage of discovery lies not in seeking
new vistas but in having new eyes." Proust
>>Yup. Though I'm not sure why arguing against such a >totalizing concept
>makes his political theory egregious
>>..... >I'm definitely no Maoist, but again I don't see >how Hayek's arguments
>>against contructivist rationalism translate into a >"class-position"
>>that is inherently anti-democratic. Perhaps this is another one of those
>>things that one either sees or doesn't.
Daniel replied:
>Perhaps so, or perhaps it would be easier if one had a nuanced
>understanding of the concept, method and ontology of "totalization." And
>of "structure." And of "immanence and nominalism."
I guess "one" refers to me? So lemme get this straight: I don't see what you
see in Hayek (I am in error) because I don't have a nuanced
concept, method and ontology of totalization, structure, immanence
and nominalism? That's quite a rhetorical pirouette.
>Or do "grand" things like (private)property relations and capital
>accumulation not exist?
Of course they do. You seem to think that since I'm not
on the capitalism is the ultimate evil bandwagon that
I'm some cruel neo-con. [watch those binarisms, Daniel -- oops
more of that "pomo" lingo]
And is it true that *any* structural interventions
>are baleful, if not "terror" mechanisms?
You should know that I would never answer a question that
requires such a totalizing/acontextual/transhistorical
answer. I will say, however, "one" is dreaming if they
think the effects of such macro-level
interventions can be controlled.
I'm not advocating
>"totalization," but I also dont take seriously the ("vulgar postmodern"?)
>use of it as a scapegoat for the inherent ills of the Enlightenment and
>socialist planning.
You mean like the "vulgar" critical view that market
formations are intrinsically destructive and unjust?
And how is "social justice" a totalizing concept
>anyway? Because its "bigger" than "individual" justice? Because its about
>"positive," not "negative" liberties?
For starters, it ignores issues of context, the "knowledge
problem," and unintended consequences. I would be (a little) more
open to it if it were pluralized -- social justice*s*.
Or is the government just on your
>back too much? Or am I wrong, and there are no such thing as classes (or
>even masses), but only "individuals."
You're reaching, Daniel.
>Here is my math, and my last word on Hayek:
[snip of Daniel's caricature of Hayek]
It really bothered me too when I realized I could no longer
trot out such facile condemnations of market formations
and some liberal/conservative thinkers.
dls
"The true voyage of discovery lies not in seeking
new vistas but in having new eyes." Proust