==================== HES POSTING =================== Response to Ana Maria Bianchi: In the early 1960s U.S. intelligence planners developed the Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) model assuming that the Cold War would increasingly involve LICs and indirect confrontation through proxies as opposed to direct East-West confrontations; they noted that the so- called North vs South dimension of the Cold War (Rich vs Poor Countries) would increase in importance in the overall Cold War. The so-called Alliance for Progress and subsequent programs like it were characterized by their initiators as "social systems engineering" initiatives and programs. By "social systems engineering" they meant creating, mobilizing and utilizing inter- disciplinary resources and "scholars" to identify, delineate, factor- weight, analyze the critical socioeconomic, political, cultural, natural structures, processes, personalities, institutions of a target society so as to manipulate, engineeer and control those and other dimensions of the target society. These social systems programs involved/and still involve use of media, exchanges (military, educational, etc), aid, trade, critical technology transfers/denials, academic journals etc to control and manipulate in accordance with perceived imperial interests. Neoclassical economics, with its focus on "homo economicus", assumptions about the inherent inefficiency/stability of capitalism, its inability to handle or even deal with phenomena like racism, sexism, imperialism, power etc, with its focus on equilibria rather than chronic disequilibria, etc was an ideal paradigm in the service of U.S. imperial interests in the so-called "Third World". The limited parameters/angles/scopes of analysis, the metaphysical a priori assumptions about "human nature", the seemingly "scientific" yet meaningless tautologies, the focus on "free trade and comparative advantage" hiding some of the power asymmetries hiding behind trade/aid/exchange relations, all made the neoclassical paradigm an influencial instrument of social systems engineering and imperial power projection/consolidation. This situation remains today. The most powerful forms of censorship limiting the menu of contending ideas and perspectives are often self-imposed. Often cowardice, opportunism, toadying combined with ideological "gatekeeping" and career-making by the so-called "great names" in the profession lead to formal censorship and coercion being unnecessary. As in the entertainment or news media, so it is in academia that the spiral of "success" involves: l---->Name Recognition---->l ^ l l l l V Exposure Preferred Access ^ l l l l<-------Big Hit <---------l Big Scoop Big Grant/Publication There are many pathways into/out of the spiral of "success". For instance: Not asking nasty questions/ teaching taboo paradigms ---->access access (perferred references etc)---> Big Grant/Publication Big Grant/Publication---> Exposure--->Name Recognition--->... In the case of some economists like Friedman who openly worked for the fascist regime of Chile, their complicity in "social systems engineering" and fascism was analogous to a German chemist who uses his/her knowledge of chemistry to make Zyklon-B gas. Jim Craven Dept of Economics Clark College Vancouver, Wa ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]