Probably not intentionally calculated to do so. Michael Yates suggested that it was a
reflexive action.
Let me raise a question -- not specifically about whether or not the rise of Stalin
was the
result of an intellectual failure -- regarding how many degrees of freedom a country
has after
a revolution. I think that Lou has written about how few choices Nicaragua had when
then
Sandinistas stepped in.
Now, a couple of us have gone round and round regarding the TINA perspective, meaning
that you
have to conform to the market or you are screwed. I don't believe it, but I do think
that
countries are limited in how far they can go.
I suspect that the world will owe Cuba a great debt in the future for showing how far
ingenuity can allow a country to survive with few ties to the world economy. The Wall
Street
Journal this week had a short piece showing how Iraq is also developing some modest
innovations in the face of the embargo. But countries also have to pay a great price
for
independence.
I have rambled enough.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> quoth Brad, in his wisdom:
> > No. It's an attempt to *think* about the future.
>
> > If you want to make not thinking about the future a virtue, go ahead...<
>
> Michael, is the above calculated to spark a flame-war?
>
> Speaking of not thinking, if Brad had done any of that, he'd have noticed that I'm
>one of
> the people who argues that one should look before leaping, think about possible
> socialisms...
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
