Re: A rethorical complaint and two questions

[Ben Day <day@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:32 AM 1/5/2003 -0500, pdavidso wrote:
> >===== Original Message From Ben Day <day@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>  Not least of all because we don't evaluate
> >ideas merely for their truth value, but we USE ideas, and we are concerned
> >with how others use ideas.  This use is political.  I think it's a
> >legitimate project to undermine what we - from a post keynesian or other
> >perspective - see as misuses of Keynes or any other thinker. Many
> >mainstream economists wish to identify with Keynes and call in his
> >authoritative weight on behalf of their perspective, while at the same time
> >smothering the radical underpinning of Keynes's system.
>
> Is it RADICAL to suggest a theory to explain ways to maintain the
> entrepreneurial (i.e., capitalist) system?

Well, I was using "radical" here mostly in the sense of "Going to the root
or origin; touching or acting upon what is essential and fundamental;
thorough; esp. radical change, cure" (to quote the Oxford English
Dictionary). In the more recent sense - "Politics. Advocating 'radical
reform' or any thorough political and social change; representing or
supporting the extreme section of a political party; hence, in more recent
use (orig. U.S.) left-wing, revolutionary." - it seems to me that Keynes's
advocacy of a "comprehensive socialization of investment" whereby the state
would "determine the aggregate amount of resources to augment the
instruments [of production] and the basic reward to those who own them"
represents a fairly radical (thorough-going) change to the current
organization of socio-economic life - particularly the second half of that
last quote. Whether it represents a "left-wing" position is questionable...
certainly incomes policies have been the brain-child of left parties in
many European countries. That it's "revolutionary" would be quite a stretch
(or rather, just incorrect). It's also possible that my political biases
are showing. God forbid. ;)

-----Ben