[lbo-talk] : BDL on Sweezy)

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 1 14:35:50 PST 2004


Brad said that Sweezey's favorable citation of Stalin speaks for itself, and it is how he would like Sweezey to be remembered. The suggestions seems to be that the most important thing about Sweezey as eitheeither aitical figure or an economist is that he at least one agreed with Stalin. If as a political figure, it is unclear how this is relevant to Sweezey as an economist. A number of well regaregardednomists of the Cambridge school were actually Stalinists, including Dobbs and I think Meek. I have anecdotal evidence that Sraffa, whose techtechnicalpetence aws wasmidable, was a Stalinist in politics. Lots of folks were soft of Stalin and nonetheless did good work. Do you disagree, Brad.

Politically, of course, Sweezey was actually an impimportantgure in the hishistory academic freedom and free speech general, as well as beibeing aounder of Monthly Review, a national trecreaturend hardly a mere Stalinist broadsheet.

If the point concern Sweezey asas n economist, I would like Brad to make clear to me what I do not understand, why the citation in the article is the most remarkable thing about SwSweezey'sareer asas an economist. What about his reconstruction of the argument of Marx's capital in The Theory Of CaCapitalistevelopment, and his proof, for what it is worth, that the transformation problem is sosoluble(And I dodon'tven believe in the LTV.) Yeah, I know Borkewiesz came up with it first. S credits him. WaWhatbout his groundbreaking work with Paul Baran in development theory? And, if wewe aree look to the tip of the hat to Stalin, given the premises of value theory, what is the emembarrassments saying that the LoV will continue to operate in the USSR.

With all due respect -- Brad, this is an olive branch, I'm trying to be civil, and I acknowledge with regret that I have fallen short in that department in dealing with you in the past. Please accept my apologies.

jks


> Let us not forget that Brad D's original statement
> commits tu quoque fallacy
> with respect to Stalin , as Michael Perelman alluded
> to. Being a mass
> murderer is irrelevant to the validity of Stalin's
> opinion on the continued
> operation of the law of value within part of the
> Soviet Union. Then , I
> think, there is a second layer of ad hominem in what
> Brad says, because he
> accuses Sweezey of bad motive in agreeing with
> Stalin. Not that Sweezey has
> made a bad argument, but that he agrees with someone
> bad. So, Brad D.'s
> argument is doubly flawed, since we are talking
> logic.
>

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list