Regarding Sowell's transformation, the problem here is one of email communication confusion and I have contributed. In the Salon interview, the question to Sowell was "So you were a Lefty once." Sowell responded "Through the decade of my 20s, I was a Marxist." The interviewer then asked "What made you turn around? " Sowell then gave the Puerto Rico story. Therefore, in context, Sowell is responding why he is no longer a Leftist, not why he is no longer a Marxist.
This makes much more sense, because Sowell has written two books, "The Vision of the Annointed" and "The Quest for Cosmic Justice," on the differences between Left and Right world views, and by Left he is not talking about Marxism as an analytical tool. A flavor of this is in the Salon interview: "You make a provocative distinction in your new book between "cosmic justice" and "traditional justice." Would you explain that distinction? Traditional justice, at least in the American tradition, involves treating people the same, holding them to the same standards and having them play by the same rules. Cosmic justice tries to make their prospects equal. One example: this brouhaha about people in the third world making clothing and running shoes -- Kathie Lee and all that. What's being said is: Isn't it awful that these people have to work for such little rewards, while those back here who are selling the shoes are making such fabulous amounts of money? And that's certainly true. But the question becomes, are you going to have everyone play by the same rules, or are you going to try to rectify the shortcomings, errors and failures of the entire cosmos? Because those things are wholly incompatible. If you're going to have people play by the same rules, that can be enforced with a minimum amount of interference with people's freedom. But if you're going to try to make the entire cosmos right and just, somebody has got to have an awful lot of power to impose what they think is right on an awful lot of other people. What we've seen, particularly in the 20th century, is that putting that much power in anyone's hands is enormously dangerous. It doesn't inevitably lead to terrible things. But there certainly is that danger." Later in the interview, there is this exchange: "I notice that in New York liberal circles, people generally prefer arguing over ideals to discussing what might work. Being on the side of the angels. Being for affordable housing, for instance. But I don't know of anybody who wants housing to be unaffordable. Liberals tend to describe what they want in terms of goals rather than processes, and not to be overly concerned with the observable consequences. The observable consequences in New York are just scary. " Regarding when Sowell turned away from Marxism as an analytical tool, I don't know. I do have his Marxism book and the conclusion of the book contains a criticism, but there is no discussion of when or why he shifted. David Shemano
