of course... but the point i mentioned was not about moralising, it was why it was brought up in the context of Sweezy. I mean Sweezy has an article in as early as circa 59 in which he suggested that soviet style socialism could lead to capitalism. The point was not about moralizing, it was more to do with the process of global capital accumulation de-reified and headed by real people who have names composed of all nationalities and religions, the majority of which
reside in the US and take cover behind US policies that are in the purview of US presidents. This indeed is an ongoing process, a sort of killing fields on going as we speak and the responsibility now lays squarely with the social class, which is headed by US capital circles and the US executive nomenclature. So, if I were to move away from a eurocentric view, not that you are abiding by this notion, but just to shed light on the issue, I would as a human (being) really really hold a grudge against this class, hold it responsible for the atrocities befallen humanity daily, and not allow anything in the history books, be resurrected to justify what it is doing. And if I had used people's or class interest for the failure of NAFTA in mexico for inst, it would have explained things more clearly... policy variables vary because persons gotten together with a ceratin interest vested or otherwise in mind make tham vary ________________________________ From: Jim Devine <[email protected]> To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 4:27:50 PM Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Brad DeLong's confession 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
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
