Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.comFore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.comNOTES TO PAGES 67–74309Chapter 31. Rand, “Dear Mr.——,” undated fundraising letter, ARP 146-PO4.2. AR to Pollock, July 20, 1941, Letters, 33.3. AR to Ann Watkins, May 17, 1941, reprinted in Robert Mayhew, ed., Essays on AynRand’s The Fountainhead (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007), 66.4. Biographical Interview 11, February 15, 1961.5. Ibid.6. Monroe Shakespeare to DeWitt Emery, November 25, 1941, ARP 139-E2x.7. Emery to Rand, undated, ARP 139-E1.8. AR to Pollock, June 23, 1941, Letters, 53; AR to Emery, August 14, 1941, Letters, 57.9. Biographical Interview 14, March 3, 1961.10. Ibid.11. Ibid.12. John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1997). Keynes’s ascendency is described in David C.Colander and Harry Landreth, eds., The Coming of Keynesianism to America (Brookfield,VT: Edward Elgar, 1996). As the authors rightly note, Keynesianism did not have a directeffect on New Deal policymaking, nor was the adaptation of his ideas uncontroversialin academic departments. The attractiveness of Keynes to a young generation of economists,however, quickly minimized the influence of classical economics at key institutionslike Harvard University.13. Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (New York: McGraw Hill, 1937), 3–4.New work on Parsons considers him more progressive than previously understood. SeeHoward Brick, Transcending Capitalism: Visions of a New Society in Modern AmericanThought (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006).14. Alfred Jay Nock, introduction to Herbert Spencer, The Man versus the State(Caldwell, ID: Caxton Printers, 1940), x.15. Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, revised ed. (1944;Boston: Beacon Press, 1955), 52.16. There is a rich debate about the role played by true Darwinian theory in this traditionof thought. None deny, however, that laissez-faire theorists drew heavily on scientifictheory and the idea of evolution, even if they drastically misunderstood Darwin’sideas. See especially Robert C. Bannister’s critique of Hofstadter, Social Darwinism:Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress, 1979); Donald C. Bellomy, “ ‘Social Darwinism’ Revisited,” Perspectives in AmericaHistory 1, n.s. (1984): 1–129.17. Channing Pollock, “What Can We Do for Democracy,” Town Hall Forum of theWest, undated, 16, ARP 146-P01; Ruth Alexander to AR, February 27, 1965, ARP 137-A2x.Nock apparently accepted Cram’s bizarre theory as scientific truth, and it contributedto the pessimism of his later years. See Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (New York:Harper Brothers, 1943), 139; Charles H. Hamilton, foreword to Albert Jay Nock andCharles H. Hamilton, The State of the Union: Essays in Social Criticism (Indianapolis: