Re: Rational Choice/Analytical M., Schwartz, Wood. Vulgar Liberalism

[cbcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Carrol Cox)]

    One of the first postings I have made to this list had to do with the
tendency (which I now label vulgar liberalism) of arguing, in effect, that
one had to read every conceivable human position before one could make a
judgment of it. I pointed out the physical impossibility during an ordinary
human life of reading everything, or even the literature of most positions.

    Now Justin wishes everyone to read the rcms & ams before reading Wood's
critique of them (tossing off the label "fundamentalist" for Wood in the
process).

    Samuel Johnson once replied to a critic (quoted from memory), "No Sir,
I am not dogmatic, I am deliberate."

    No one on this list is ever going to come even close to reading everything
he/she "ought" to read, so the question really is, not "Should I read X," but,
"Of all the things that must be read, which ones need not be?"

    So I am never going to bother to read a "serious" defense of astrology,
of Jerry Falwell, or of telepathy. After I have reread all 4 vols. of Capital
several more times, I might get around to rereading the Philosophic Mss. or
Critique of Political Econ., but probably will fall into senility first.

    Now, should I give some of my remaining hours of life to reading Roemer?
Should I recommend to my wife, now on mandatory overtime at the post office,
that she read Roehmer or Carlings? I have browsed in them. I have browsed in
Justin's posts. (And considering that classes start Wednesday and that teaching
while fighting clinical depression requires a good deal of over-preparation,
I'm spending way too much time on the list.) Nothing so far suggests that
reading the rcms and ams would be other than a great waste of time, far
better spent on writers whom I have not read yet but obviously should--e.g.,
Alan Wald; e.g., a number of the "Red Feminists"; and so forth. I ordered
all the back issues of Doug's LBO a year ago, and so far have not read most
of them. They are clearly more important than Carling (judging from the
weakness of his reply to Wood in NLR 184).

    Nope. Roemer will have to await my next incarnation.

    Carrol



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------