Even more equilibrium, stasis and death

[bcox@xxxxxxx (Brad Cox @ GMU/PSOL)]

I wrote:
>>Thus the Copernican shift from energy/matter (capital, labor, rent) in the
>>center of the universe to *knowledge* at the center, with capital, labor
>>and rent in the periphery.

Jim Devine <JNDF%LMUACAD.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> responded:

>How is it possible to have knowledge without having something to have
>knowledge about, i.e., capital, labor, resources, etc.?

That's not very compelling. Copernicus didn't deny the existence of the
heavens when he shifted the focus from the earth to the sun. Hayek didn't
deny capital labor and rent by shifting the emphasis to knowledge.

I suspect that paradigm shift debates all turn out to be chicken versus egg
disputes in disguise, where the only "right" answer is *both* came first.
That's why I chose non-binary terminology like "shift of focus", which
leaves definite room for capital, labor and rent, tho putting them in the
periphery instead of on center stage. But they remain in the picture
nonetheless.

>As Cottrel (sp?) points out, Hayek's critique of the old USSR-type
>system was based on the assumption that the market system did the
>job well.  I must admit I like old Leon Trotsky's argument (in the
>1920s) that central planning only works  with democracy -- because
>authoritarian control cuts off the flow of information from the
>bottom to the top. And of course von Hayek was strongly opposed to
>democracy.

Whoa! Wasn't Hayek's bogeyman socialism and communism? Don't recall him
saying anything bad about democracy. Always figured him for a libertarian,
myself.


--
Brad Cox; George Mason Program on Social and Organizational Learning
Fairfax VA; bcox@xxxxxxx; 703 968 8229 voice 968 8798 fax