>K
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
>on 19/5/00 4:16 am, Brad De Long at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> Brad De Long wrote:
>>>
>>>> So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism?
>>>> Why was the world afflicted with, say, Paul Sweezy's claim that
>>>> "One need not have a specific idea of a... beautiful musical
>>>> composition, to recognize that the... the rock-and-roll that blares
>>>> at us exemplify a pattern of utilization of human and material
>>>> resources which is inimical to human welfare"?
>>>
>>> My god. Where did he say that?
>>>
>>> Doug
>>
>> _Monopoly Capital_, pp. 138-9. He also takes after slums and cars
>> with big fins, where he has more of a point...
>>
>>
>Hey Brad
>
>What's your beef with Sweezy? You have already tried to discredit him by
>referring us to his citations of J.V. Stalin of yore. Now it's time for the
>rock and roll generation to disassociate itself from this obvious
>reactionary -- is that the idea?
>
>Michael K.
I think that the line between Sweezy's attitude toward rock-and-roll
and the suppression of the Czechoslovakian Jazz Section, or the
bulldozing of Moscow modern art exhibits, is pretty clear. The point
is not the "discrediting" of Sweezy, but how it came to be that
people who claimed to be committed to a tradition that extolled human
freedom, potential, and development could be so hostile to...
...jazz
...modern art
...rock and roll
That is an interesting historical puzzle; I would like to have a
sense of why it happened.
Brad DeLong
