(OPE-L) Remembering James F. Becker

["Gerald A. Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>]

   I learned recently of the death of James F. Becker,  a

retired member of the Economics Department faculty at New

York University (NYU).  This came as quite a blow to me since

he was one of the most influential mentors that I have ever had.

The news was made all the more difficult to stomach when I was

informed  that he had died "at least five or six years ago."

 

   About once a year for the last nine years I did a search under

his name on the Internet, but for some reason I didn't pick up the

telephone and call him or the NYU Economics Department.

While his book, _Marxian Political Economy_,  and several old

articles are referred to online,  there was nothing mentioned about

his life or death.   Although this is horribly belated (for which I can't

help but feel pangs of guilt), for the benefit of all those who knew

and cared about Jim I feel the obligation and desire to remember

his life and influence.

 

******************************

 

    James F. Becker, Marxist scholar and educator,  was born in

Cedar Rapids, Iowa on November 3, 1921.   He received a B.A.

in 1947 and an M.A. in 1949 from the University of Iowa.   He

taught journalism at the University  of Iowa in 1947 and 1948 and

economics in 1949. He also taught economics at Iowa State

Teachers College in 1949  and 1950.

 

   He received his PhD from Columbia University in 1957 and

was a Danforth fellow at Harvard University in 1959.

 

   Jim began teaching at NYU in 1953.  When I was there he

taught classes in introductory economics, contemporary economic

issues, and Marxian economics.  The latter was offered as a

graduate course.   His fields of specialization included political

economy, the history of economic thought  (with a particular

interest in the life and thought of Thorstein Veblen) and class

analysis.

 

    Like several others of his generation,  he was schooled in

neo-classical economics and only became radicalized and a

Marxist after becoming a professional economist.   In the

"Acknowledgements" to _Marxian Political Economy_ (Cambridge

University Press, 1977), he describes this transformation:

 

    "For some decades the tide of protest literature has been rising ....

     Having myself come to maturity in a troubled epoch -- of

     depression, World War II and its noxious aftermath, the cold war,

     of the new imperialism -- a mounting anger at first afflicted both

     mind and spirit.  Unaware at first that this feeling had any

     connection with matters of social class, my early endeavors to

     understand the chaos, to find laws if not order within it, were

     pounded and beaten by events until I was forced to admit that

     the theories of the standard repertoire could only be brought into

     agreement with the main facts by twisting them beyond all

     point of contact with their assumptions and authentic formulations.

     For a time, confidence born of youth and a dexterous imagination

     preserved my faith in these theories, and these might have served

     indefinitely were it not for those world events of revolution and war,

     especially the Chinese revolution and the war in Southeast Asia,

     which forced the issue whether to abandon science or to find one up

     to the tasks that such events portended.  No doubt many a Marxist

     has been made by the Pentagon; but if Saul has his thousands,

     David has his tens of thousands, and the Pentagon and the like

     fade into insignificance in comparison with the surging movement

     of the oppressed to whose ranks, I gradually discovered, I myself

     belong.  It is not the oppressors -- who never learn -- but the

     oppressed who, in discovering their oppression, discover themselves."

 

    The dust jacket to _Marxian Political Economy_  asserted:  "Unlike

neo-Marxist economists, who attempt to reinterpret Marx in the light

of Keynes, Professor Becker adopts  an unalloyed Marxist approach

to the leading problems of political economy."   This is misleading, though,

since his work was also very _original_  and he could not be said to be

an "Orthodox Marxist." (or orthodox _anything_, for that matter).

The sections of his book on the productive and unproductive _consumption_

of capital within the context of Marxian reproduction schemes and his

class analysis of the of the "managerial phase" are particularly noteworthy

and original. His analysis of the latter topics was also presented in  "Class

Structure and Conflict in the Managerial Phase" in _Science & Society_

(2 parts; Fall, 1973 and Winter 1973-1974).  He published in other

journals as well ranging from the mainstream _American Economic Review_

to the New Left publication _Studies on the Left_.

 

   The NYU Economics Department had a reputation for being  _very _

conservative even by the standards of mainstream (marginalist) economists

-- due in part to the presence of a contingent of Austrian-style economists.

It also had a reputation for recruiting 'big names' like Fritz Machlup,

William Baumol and Oskar Morgenstern (and as I was about to graduate,

Nobel Prize winner Wassily Leontief).  The 'big names' attracted most

of the students and Jim was intellectually and professionally isolated in the

department -- although in the 1970's another Marxist, Edward N. Wolff,

joined the faculty. For a while I wondered how Jim was able to survive in

that department.  I came to realize that other faculty members viewed him

as an eccentric (indeed, I think they viewed 'Marxist'  as simply a form

of eccentric) rather like the good-natured character that Jimmy Stewart

played in the 1950 classic film "Harvey."   I suspect that the reason he was

able to survive in this milieu was simply because -- like the character of 

Elwood P. Dowd  -- he was a very _likeable_ man.   He was the kind

of  person who could disarm a rival with a smile and a laugh.

 

   Jim had genuine charm and charisma in the classroom.  Even the most

conservative business students at NYU liked taking his courses.  He had

a rather uncanny way of making radicalism and Marxism seem mainstream

while making mainstream economics sound irrational and inhuman.  I think

he was able to pull this off in part because he was the very picture of Middle

America.   Indeed, he _looked_ and even _sounded_ like the actor Jimmy

Stewart.  More than one student commented on his striking mid-Western

good looks: he was fairly tall, had endearing blue eyes, and (when I met him)

wavy blond hair. 

 

    He had a somewhat theatrical, but underplayed, way of teaching.  He had

what is known in theatre as _stage presence_.  It was obvious that he

thoroughly enjoyed teaching. Yet, in his introductory economics courses he

hardly ever actually followed the text -- Paul Samuelson's _Economics_.

Instead, he often lectured about what interested him -- especially his current

research and writing.  The students didn't seem to mind.  It could get

repetitive though -- I took four courses with him and in every one he spent

hours presenting graphs on simple and expanded reproduction which were

later published in _Marxian Political Economy_. 

 

    A friend of mine, who I had known since our freshman year,  ended up

taking 3 courses with him even though her interest was in literature, she had

no aptitude for economics or theory, and she never got good grades in Jim's

classes.  But, so strong was his appeal that she kept taking his courses.

(This should not be misinterpreted -- he was married and devoted to his wife.)

 

     He also encouraged students to think for themselves and was very giving

with his time.  He was someone who _really_ cared about students and years

after I left NYU he showed a genuine concern for my progress. Although

he was my professor and I was his student,  he treated me as an equal.  He

especially respected the fact that I was politically active both on and outside

of the campus.  When I took my first course with him, I remember talking to

him after class and complaining about what I considered to be a highly

inaccurate 'Appendix' on  Marx in the 9th edition of Samuelson's _Economics_.

He encouraged me to write a critical review in lieu of the midterm examination

which I went on to do.  After I trashed the 'Appendix' in my essay he even

encouraged me to have it published.  Although I never followed through, his

encouragement and praise led me to continue studying -- and being critical

about -- economics.

 

    While I was interested in economics, I initially took classes in history. Had

Jim not taught introductory economics classes, I almost certainly would not have

studied economics since a bad experience with a high school course in economics

had turned me off to the possibility of studying that subject.  But, since I knew that

he was a Marxist and I could thereby circumvent the ordeal of being subjected to

introductory economics courses taught by bourgeois economists, I ended up

doing the equivalent of a double major in history and economics.  I don't think it's

an exaggeration to say that the course of my life would have been very different

had I not studied with him since I would not have studied economics on the

undergraduate or graduate level, would not have become a political economist

myself, and  -- continuing that line of reasoning -- would not have set in motion

the events that led to the creation of OPE-L.

 

   In his later years he made frequent trips to Italy and combined relaxation with

meetings with Italian Marxists. 

 

   I was told he suffered from a prolonged illness prior to his death.  He was

survived by his wife but I was informed that she moved out of New York City. 

 

    Jim Becker was a modest man and I have no doubt that he would have been

somewhat embarrassed -- yet at the same time, appreciative -- about the above.

Thousands of students benefited by knowing him and his intellectual legacy

can _still_ influence Marxists today.   If you don't believe me (or even if

you do) then  read  _Marxian Political Economy_ (which, unfortunately, has long

since gone out-of-print). 

 

    Jim's life should have been celebrated and it saddens me that he could have

died with -- apparently -- hardly any of his associates, former students and comrades

taking note.  How was this possible?  I don't know.  However, if  there is someone

who influenced your life who you haven't heard from for a long time, don't you think

it's high time to attempt to contact her or him? 

 

    At least now, the next person that conducts a search for "James F. Becker"  on

the Internet will know that he lived, died, struggled, was loved, and made a

difference.

 

In solidarity, Jerry