Read that bit early on in *Conflict of Visions*, Jennifer. It's a perfect statement of conservative principles and a perfect example of the hideously tendentious misrepresentation of Marx's logic ('The Constrained Vision' as prudence by way of piecemeal change; and 'The Unconstrained Vision' as the road to Auschwitz and the Gulag Archipelago - what's more, he accuses Marx of having a 'constrained vision' when it suits (re the past and present) and an unconstrained one when it suits (re the future). So pathetic a misrepresentation of historical materialism, I have yet to encounter again.
He's a lot of fun (elsewhere) on affirmative action, too.
Like many conservatives, he writes well. Like many, he puts his position well. And like many, he obviates all alternative views with a rhetorical flourish that bears but a minute's scrutiny (sadly most of us haven't the time and energy to put that minute in).
Sowell fails to notice, for instance, that black blokes with high pay and high status (rare as they still are), as part of a society which must guarantee formal rights to all as equal citizens, only exist because of the revolutionary activities of people with sufficiently unconstrained visions to eschew what he would call wondrous prudence (from Tom Payne to ML King). A lot of people dared and died to get the likes of Sowell (black or white) where they are, but Sowell's not just forgotten them ... he's besmirched them.
Fume, splutter ... Rob.
>At 11:52 PM 4/27/1999 -0500, Jennifer A Young wrote:
>>Thanks for the warning. I just picked up a book by Thomas Sowell-"A
>>Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles" at my
>>local library's fill up a paper bag for two dollars sale. Maybe I won't
>>bother with it now.
>
>Sowell is a charlatan, Jennifer. He actually began as a Marxist. In '63,
>on the centennial of the publication of Capital, he wrote a journal article
>on the meaning of the book, that I think was quite good. Some time after
>that he became a rabid right winger and has spewed out nonsense ever since.
>I concluded a long time ago that he switched sides to mainly enhance his
>chances for fame and fortune. He is black. Black voices on the left are
>many; it can be hard to get attention. But by becoming a black conservative
>economist, he had the field pretty much to himself for quite a while.
>
>If anyone knows any more details of Sowell's transformation (problem), I'd
>like to hear them.