Can't we just disagree without your reading me out of the club? I think many of your
views are abhorrent and represent no socialism I would ever want anything to do with,
but I don't deny that they represent a current of left thinking. You think that market
socialism is a contradiction in terms, etc., yet it was tried in Yugoslavia, Hungary,
and (some say) is being tried in China, and there are respectable arguments for its
advantages. Maybe theya re wrong. But aren't they soicialist arguments? --jks
In a message dated Thu, 3 Aug 2000 4:09:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<<
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/03/00 03:29PM >>>
When our critics are right about something, we should revise our views.
)))))))))))
CB: Sure, but what is an example of something important that they are correct about ?
I say that realizing there has been a recent long thread on Hayek , for example. But
from that thread, my conclusion is that Hayek is wrong, so we shouldn't revise our
views.
I guess what I am saying is that there are not a lot of "new" critiques that we
haven't heard before and in the course of formulating our current conclusions about
reality, life, the world, people. Most of our critics' arguments we heard long ago,
and concluded that they were wrong and that is part of why we took up our current
point of view.
))))))))))))))))
Unlike Yoshie, I don't think we should just listen to formulate better replies to
their errors, but also to see if we can learn something, to correct our own errors. It
is not an a priori truth that "we" are right about everything. Indeed, since we
isagree on many things, it is almost an priori truth that "we" are not right about
everything.
(((((((((((((((((
CB: It is an a posteriori truth that we are correct about more things than our critics
are. In other words, I think as I do now based on my experience, including hearing
arguments from those who think differently, not based on an a priori presumption.
This "we" thing gets sticky when you start agreeing with "them", sure.
(((((((((((((
Apparently your response to disagreement is to drum out the heretics into the
darkness,
((((((((((((((((
CB: When you say "apparently" , what exactly makes this apparent ? Certainly, I have
never said "drum out the heretics into the darkness", so I it is not prima facie
apparent. Sounds more like a slanderous concoction from imagination.
My approach to disagreement is to listen to it and judge it based on logic,
experience, practice.
((((((((((((
Since I agree with Hayek about planning, I am now one of Them, an apologist for the
bourgeoisie.
(((((((((((((
CB: What exactly constituted the "we" you referred to ? My understanding of the "we"
I am in is that we conclude, from 500 years of the market dominating that it does not
at all perform some kind of desirable production and distribution of use-values as
Hayek presumes. In other words, it is not only that Hayek is wrong that planning for
general welfare is not possible, he is wrong that the market does a good job of
providing for the general welfare. The market provides for the wealth of a small
minority of the population. . He is wrong a posteriori/empirically with respect to the
history of the market in reality. So, in that sense , when you champion Hayek , you
are with them. Not cast out in the "lightness as a heretic" , but logically,
reasonably, non-religiously, rejected as in error, based on an accurate look at the
facts of the market in history. Your attempt to characterize this as like some
irrational religious process is inaccurate.
(((((((((((((
I guess that is news to me, and I bet it would be news to them,
(((((((((((((((
CB: It wouldn't be news to them that a champion of the market and opponent of planning
is favorable to them, the bourgeoisie.
((((((((((((((
but it is certainly one response to divergence of views. It's odd, because you used to
think I was one of You, for many years, and my views have not changed that much. I
have just become more chary of labelling them as one thing or another.
((((((((((((
CB: One merit of my view is that a first principle of it is that things change. I
certainly don't recall you championing the market over planning when I first met you.
You may have been thinking it, but you never said anything like that to me. You may
not have changed but what you have said to me has changed, so it is not odd at all
that my view of your views has changed.
In a message dated Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:08:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<<
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/02/00 04:47PM >>>
-clip-
I was saying something more modest: that we should acquaint ourselves, deeply and
sympathetically, with the best argument of the key antagonists to our most cherished
beliefs. If that is an unattainable, our situation is more dismal than even I believe
it to be.
)))))))))))))
CB: Yes, but once "we've" done that what is our conclusion ? That we are correct or
that our antagonists are correct ?
My impression is that you have concluded that Hayek is correct and "we" are not
correct. That would mean "we" are no longer a "we". That is , you are with "them",
Hayek being one of them.
But if we conclude that we are correct, as I do, then, those key antagonists are
our arch-enemies , the worst of the bad, because they are the most demogogic, most
successful at persuading people of the wrong course.
)))))))))))
No doubt future generations will be amused at our attempts to understand ourselves
because we have missed things that are obvious to them. But we have to do right by our
own lights--whose else's should we use?--and it's no excuse to avoid Hayek because
there might be someone else, whom I do not know, whose work I am missing.
If you think there are better critics of the left's cherished views, the thing to do
is to tell us about them and present their views for discussion and appraisal, as I
have done with Hayek. Isn't this obvious?
(((((((((((((
CB: Discussion of our key antagonists and left critics is a secondary task, once we
conclude that we, the left, are correct, ultimately after considering all the
criticisms we hear. Seems we would concentrate more on our key allies on the left
than on our antagonists.
>>
>>
