As I think you know (or should know) the term "bastard Keynesianism" was originally due to Joan Robinson (whom, I gather, you disapprove of) and was applied to the
the "neo-Keynesian" synthesis a la Hicks-Hansen and Samuelson.
This is the sense in which Lynn Turgeon uses the term. And it refers to the doctrine as "bastard," not the promulgators of the doctrine; although I have no doubt that Joan R. herself probably did call Uncle Paul S. a "bastard" at some point or other during the infamous Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital debates.
BTW, it is certainly inaccurate to infer from Lynn's observations on Hitlerian economic policy that he is (or ever was) a fan of Hitler or his policies in general. Get a grip. Barkley Rosser On Tue, 6 Oct 1998 16:09:20 -0400 (EDT) Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
> From Michael P's comment, it seems that Turgeon's amazon.com review of
> Silverman's book is a very bad one.
>
> And why would a disciple of a pervert rail against his opponents as
> bastards? I much prefer the king of kink to his droll symapathizers. Talk
> about droll: didn't Joan Robinson take to uniforming herself in Mao
> outfits?
>
> But the fact remains: Neither Reagan nor Rakesh thought the fascist state
> was the best instrument by which to realize the Keynesian utopia of
> capitalist full employment. That was Keynes' own special insight (see
> bertram schefold note in cambridge journal of economics, recommended by
> Michael P). Instead of Jim blowing his top at me for overspeaking, why
> doesn't he comment on Keynes' own conclusions?
>
> As for Chomsky, has anyone read the bio by David Barsky?
>
> best, rakesh
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu