Daniel Vukovich wrote:
>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).
Understood.
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'm no Hayekian nor am I some gung-ho anarcho-capitalist, but
at the same time I'm a bit tired of the binary logic and
acts of reification that seem to woven into the fabric of many analyses of
capitalist formations. Moreover, I still contend that your presentation
and/or understanding of Hayek is one dimensional -- though
I have no desire to engage in the type of extensive textual exegesis
that would be required to prove my point
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).
Hmmm...your response to my intitial post suggested otherwise to me.
If you say that you do not see capitalism in that way, then
I will take you at your word.
(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.
It seems that we agree on something. However, this leaves me little
confused as to how you're willing to engage in *P*olitics and do not limit
yourself to *p*olitics.
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.)
Indeed.
>
>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.
Moi? Knee-jerk? Nah! Or maybe those behaviorists are right after all!
Hugs and kisses!
deliciously liminal subjectivities
>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).
Understood.
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'm no Hayekian nor am I some gung-ho anarcho-capitalist, but
at the same time I'm a bit tired of the binary logic and
acts of reification that seem to woven into the fabric of many analyses of
capitalist formations. Moreover, I still contend that your presentation
and/or understanding of Hayek is one dimensional -- though
I have no desire to engage in the type of extensive textual exegesis
that would be required to prove my point
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).
Hmmm...your response to my intitial post suggested otherwise to me.
If you say that you do not see capitalism in that way, then
I will take you at your word.
(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.
It seems that we agree on something. However, this leaves me little
confused as to how you're willing to engage in *P*olitics and do not limit
yourself to *p*olitics.
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.)
Indeed.
>
>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.
Moi? Knee-jerk? Nah! Or maybe those behaviorists are right after all!
Hugs and kisses!
deliciously liminal subjectivities