MICHAEL YATES wrote: > Why would anyone take J. Bradford seriously? He seems to be a smart guy (unlike, say, Mankiw or Geithner) and seems to know an awful lot about at least one specialty within economics (i.e., macroeconomics). Though I disagree with him on a lot (I am sure), his partial repudiation of neoliberalism that appears in the piece I posted is a straw in the wind, as it were (though the wind is blowing hard all straw far to the right). If establishmentarian people like deLong, Krugman, and Stiglitz are disagreeing with the establishment economic consensus (the econsensus, as I almost typed), that's as interesting to me as elite economists calling for fiscal stimulus in 1932 or after the publication of the GT in 1936.
I think the key thing about Sweezy is that he changed his attitude toward Stalin (unlike many neoliberals who continue to respect the opinions of Greenspan and his ilk). Soula: Even though the demonization of Stalin by our Fearless Leaders, their congresscritters, and their media was heavily ideological and self-serving (as are almost all demonizations), Stalin was also profoundly bad for the socialist movements. (Among other things, I'd bet that his government killed more leading Bolsheviks than the Tsar's government did.) It's good for the socialist left to frankly face the failures of our thinkers and leaders rather than sweeping them under the rug. Even a smart and generally progressive guy like Sweezy had his failings. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
