Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T02:38:07.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rejoinder to Dye and Zeigler

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Extract

Professors Dye and Zeigler (D&Z) take the easy way out. They invite the reader to think of their present critic as one of those “academic Marxists” in the grip of a “secular religion” “insulated from world events, spinning out theoretical webs.” This approach enables them to rest secure in their ideological assumption that, while their critic is a hopeless ideologue, they themselves are value-free social scientists arguing closely from evidence.

Yet they continue to ignore evidence they do not find agreeable agreeable—as with the numerous examples of capitalist militarism and aggression I proffered. I noted other variables that could measure militarism, including treaties, overseas bases, striking power, mobility, levels of technology, etc. Given this opportunity to respond to these specifics, D&Z choose not to. One is tempted to conclude that they fail to answer because they have no answers.

Type
Features
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldridge, Robert. 1983. First Strike! The Pentagon's Strategy for Nuclear War. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
Center for Defense Information. 1988. “U.S.-Soviet Military Facts,” Defense Monitor, vol. 17, no. 5. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Gervasi, Tom. 1986. The Myth of Soviet Military Supremacy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Parenti, Michael. 1989. The Sword and the Dollar: Imperialism, Revolution and the Arms Race. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar