Burns's review of Democracy in Chains in the History of Political Economy was highly unfavorable, a sure sign of Koch affiliation. Her recent piece in the NYT plugging her own Friedman biography by connecting it with Claudia Goldin was also misleading about the history of women in the economics profession (she completely ignored the coordinated effort to push women out of economics departments as a means of ensconcing neoclassicism by marginalizing institutionalism and elevating prestige by making the field appear more "rigorous" and scientific).
It's disappointing that an accurate intellectual history of the economics profession relies on outsiders who can be painted as uninformed or congenitally hostile--the fruits of the Koch takeover of the History of Economic Thought--and inherently knowledge-destroying intellectual effort.
We desperately need a reconsideration of Maclean six years later or whatever it's been. The coordinated counter-offensive successfully bulldozed the actual follow-on scholarship that shows she was right. It didn't help that in the intervening years liberals decided to make common cause with libertarians, in foolish pursuit of anti-Trump allies.
Thanks for reading, Rick! I never read the Maclean book but I can agree with you that Burns' review, which I have read, should not be interpreted as "a sure sign of Koch affiliation." I do think that the Burns' review of Maclean contains, in addition to scholarly concerns, some plainly ideological statements which illuminate the politics of the Friedman bio. I hope you'll write about the new book, would be curious for your take. Cheers.
And it'd be far more honest to compare "similar puppets": East- and West-european, Asian or African. Something tells me the score is going to be south for "socialists"
I have only one question: based on what sources you conclude, that pro-American regimes in Latin America oppressed more people than the Eastern bloc? It's so debateble question, it's essential to give some links
Thanks for reading. I cite, and link to, this essay: John H. Coatsworth, “The Cold War in Central America, 1975–1991,” in Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Cold War: Endings (Cambridge UP, 2010). Coatsworth himself says this in a footnote: "This observation is based on the author’s examination of published CIA and State Department reports and on the reports of Freedom House, a private nonprofit organization hostile to Communist regimes." Clearly the Cold War balance sheet is a larger and highly controversial question; for my purposes in this post, I just wish to establish, as I wrote, that "It is by no means self-evident that Friedman’s mid-1970s critics were obsessively displacing memories of the Gulag, as opposed to focusing with good reason on contemporary US-sponsored atrocities in their own hemisphere." This is consistent with recognizing Soviet responsibility for large numbers of deaths in, e.g., Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.
Burns's review of Democracy in Chains in the History of Political Economy was highly unfavorable, a sure sign of Koch affiliation. Her recent piece in the NYT plugging her own Friedman biography by connecting it with Claudia Goldin was also misleading about the history of women in the economics profession (she completely ignored the coordinated effort to push women out of economics departments as a means of ensconcing neoclassicism by marginalizing institutionalism and elevating prestige by making the field appear more "rigorous" and scientific).
It's disappointing that an accurate intellectual history of the economics profession relies on outsiders who can be painted as uninformed or congenitally hostile--the fruits of the Koch takeover of the History of Economic Thought--and inherently knowledge-destroying intellectual effort.
Yes, I think the MacLean review is a kind of key to what she's up to ideologically in the Friedman book. Deserves a post of its own.
We desperately need a reconsideration of Maclean six years later or whatever it's been. The coordinated counter-offensive successfully bulldozed the actual follow-on scholarship that shows she was right. It didn't help that in the intervening years liberals decided to make common cause with libertarians, in foolish pursuit of anti-Trump allies.
I couldn't disagree more. Burn's Maclean review was empirical, and sound.
That said, I find Tim wins the argument about Chile. The notion of impure ideological motives, however, seems to me dubious.
Thanks for reading, Rick! I never read the Maclean book but I can agree with you that Burns' review, which I have read, should not be interpreted as "a sure sign of Koch affiliation." I do think that the Burns' review of Maclean contains, in addition to scholarly concerns, some plainly ideological statements which illuminate the politics of the Friedman bio. I hope you'll write about the new book, would be curious for your take. Cheers.
Rick, if you listen to the last 5 or so minutes here, you'll hear Burns more or less endorsing school vouchers. I'm curious how you read that in terms of ideological motives? https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jennifer-burns/id1534217240?i=1000637439108
I know he was a brutal dictator, but just how many millions did Stalin actually kill?
"the fall of Allende “has been taken as proof that socialism and democracy are incompatible, that only a dictatorship can impose socialism.”"
Interesting ...
And it'd be far more honest to compare "similar puppets": East- and West-european, Asian or African. Something tells me the score is going to be south for "socialists"
I have only one question: based on what sources you conclude, that pro-American regimes in Latin America oppressed more people than the Eastern bloc? It's so debateble question, it's essential to give some links
Thanks for reading. I cite, and link to, this essay: John H. Coatsworth, “The Cold War in Central America, 1975–1991,” in Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Cold War: Endings (Cambridge UP, 2010). Coatsworth himself says this in a footnote: "This observation is based on the author’s examination of published CIA and State Department reports and on the reports of Freedom House, a private nonprofit organization hostile to Communist regimes." Clearly the Cold War balance sheet is a larger and highly controversial question; for my purposes in this post, I just wish to establish, as I wrote, that "It is by no means self-evident that Friedman’s mid-1970s critics were obsessively displacing memories of the Gulag, as opposed to focusing with good reason on contemporary US-sponsored atrocities in their own hemisphere." This is consistent with recognizing Soviet responsibility for large numbers of deaths in, e.g., Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.