Wed Oct 19 11:37:04 MDT 1994

     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
  BITNET:  sciabrrc at nyuacf


More information about the Marxism mailing list