Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:19:06 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------- HES POSTING -----------------
>From what I've seen, David presents a pretty convincing case about Carlyle.
Based on his recommendation, I read the N* Question and found it thoroughly
racist.
The problem, as Larry pointed out, is in extending that thinking.
Pat Buchanan opposed the WTO. Pat Buchanan is a racist. But
we cannot move from that information to say that the WTO is
antiracist or that opponents of the WTO necessarily share
Buchanan's racist views.
In another sense, David is correct. The early British classical
political economists were as willing to exploit their own people as
they were the Irish or the Africans. Smith, for example, had a
vision that market forces would whittle everybody down to have a
common petty bourgeois attitude and to function as compliant
workers, although he worried that the urban environment might
interfere with such progress.
Michael Perelman
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|