On Thu, 10 Nov 1994 13:14:21 -0800 James Michael Craven said:
>Jim,
>
>On one level I can agree with these sentiments. On another level,
>various theories have real consequences on real people when they form
>the basis of policies and programs that are subsequently implemented.
>So could we add to your list of permissible subjects of discussion
>real world consequences of various theories on real people?
Yes, that's a friendly amendment. But I don't think that
there's always a strong link between theories and their imple-
mentation. Alot of the time, the theory is just window dressing
for what the policy-makers wanted to do anyway.
Those in power usually don't care about what academics think
unless it fits with thi their preconceived plans.
>Secondly, my knowledge of social systems engineering campaigns and
>their consequences does not just come from books and journals; it
>also comes from real life experience. It is very difficult to sit
>politely by and see some petit bourgeois academic bookworm
>pontificate on how removing Allende did a favor for the Chilean
>people or how "we" fought the "good fight" and "won" the Cold War
>when I know and have seen for a fact some of the ugly consequences of
>the projection of U.S. imperial power on real people like my friend
>Pocho.
Yes, but yelling at the bookworm doesn't convince anyone.
(My strategy for this context -- i.e., pen-l -- is to argue
as rationally as I can with people who have outrageous
opinions; they usually reveal themselves to be dogmatists
and worse, discrediting themselves in others' eys eyes.)
What we need is a political movement that makes such pepl
people irrelevant. A small part of building such a movement is
having an alternative theory that goes beyond its moral appeal
and is actually superior by "scientific" standards.
>Added to all of this, as an educator I am distressed as I see young
>bright students progressively turned off from economics by some of
>these sholar despots who refuse to allow any work other than that
>which operates through neoclassical lenses and who continually push
>this crap and represent the neoclassical paradigms as representative
>of all of economics.
Amen. Neoclassical econ. doesn't do very well by logical,
empirical, or methodological standards, IMHO.
But, one of Herb's valid points is that one can't simply
criticize the established wisdom. One has to present a
superior alternative.
>I am reminded of an old story that was told in Germany in the late
>1920s. An old socialist was asked whether or not there would be a
>revolution in Germany and he answered "No" He was asked "Why Not?"
>The old socialist answered because there is a narrow pathway leading
>up to the Reichstag with spacious lawns on either side of the pathway
>and "keep off the grass" signs all over the lawns; and how, the old
>socialist asked, are you going to get all those revolutionaries going
>up that narrow pathway?
Yes but there's no point in violating s even such silly laws
if one is simply an isolated individual and such actions will
not have any positive effect of breaking that isolation.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
