Re: Fouc Hayek, ad nauseum

I'll keep this short (finally). But for the record I didnt mean to "edit"
your post dls, but rather meant to conserve bandwith (and then promptly
forgot to delete all those passages beneath my response). My "equation"
itself was meant tongue-in-cheek, but unless someone (dls or whomever) can
instruct otherwise, my list of points in re Hayek's theory and what makes
him politically egregious (that word again!) are, in my huble opinion,
valid, and far, far from a "caricature" of said sycophant. I anxiously
await any substantive post/defense of Hayek as something other than what I
see. I have all kinds of quotes from Bakunin lying in wait to respond to
this too.

I do not see any spots in my posts that suggest I "blame" capitalism or The
Market as "the main enemy/evil" (as Engels would have put it). (I would in
fact argue, with a number of radical political economists, that there is no
such thing as *the* market (system) or *the* economy. That, in my view, is
one of the things one learns from a Foucault and a critique of
knowledge/power. Funny, though, how this -- and the critique of
rationality to boot -- doesnt preclude some of us from defending the
idea/project of socialism.)

And yet, I am bemused at how well-nigh *any* critique of what counts as
capitalism and the ideology of the market generates, in some quarters, a
knee-jerk response about those vulgar, anti-intellectual anti-postmodern
anti-pluralist Marxists.

/s/,

A Revolting Poststructuralist



Daniel Vukovich
English; The Unit for Criticism
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Partial thread listing: