Ask @zeithistoriker for a copy
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @BruceBartlett and
Thanks. There's a critique here fwiw (unpaywalled) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3490778 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @HeerJeet and
Published version.https://econjwatch.org/articles/misrepresenting-mises-quotation-editing-and-a-rejection-of-peer-review-at-cambridge-university-press …
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @BruceBartlett @HeerJeet and
Thanks! working on other stuff now but will save for later
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @BruceBartlett and
Should point out that Slobodian has never addressed or formally responded to the issues surrounding the deceptive Mises quotations. I wasn't the only one who noticed them either. A referee flagged them during peer review and recommended "reject" but the journal editor overruled.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @PhilWMagness @CathyYoung63 and
Several of them are egregious, e.g. this one where he inverts the explicit meaning of Mises's statement by deleting the second half of the sentence.pic.twitter.com/W6ItZyANGm
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @PhilWMagness @CathyYoung63 and
Another example where Mises says the exact opposite of the view Slobodian attributes to him in the next several sentences, which are conveniently omitted.pic.twitter.com/zpEvIWasmb
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @PhilWMagness @CathyYoung63 and
Meh. Those are "to be sure" provisos that shrewd writers put in to cover their ass. But they are in service of Mises main message (which in that book was to provide a strategic defense of fascism and imperialism). Your defense of this garbage does you discredit.
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @PhilWMagness and
I think it's important not to overstate. It opens the door to people like Phil. Both books are fairly skeptical of imperialism (particularly the latter), it's not just CYA. However, they're not anti-imperialist and both imperialism and fascism are seen as potential instruments.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Although Mises takes an instrumentalist approach to imperialism and fascism at various points and these are informative, what it's a defense of is his strain of liberalism. This all poses plenty of problems to chew on even without overstatement.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Okay, to be more exact: Mises is defending a version of liberalism which is willing to make instrumental use of fascism and imperialism. That instrumentalism does, to my mind, mean the provisos are rhetorical.
-
-
This comes across to me as quite a bit more forceful than a "to be sure" proviso, and I'm sure Mises wasn't the only thinker to rationalize pragmatic accommodations with the real world that could be described as willingness to make instrumental use of Very Bad Things.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.