BOOKS
123
socialist poli cies before 1973, I doubt tha t the present pro blem in the
United Sta tes would be more than marginall y improved. Ultimately,
oil will run out, though we don 't know how soon, and we h ave to
adjust to that. T hi s is a techno logical and geo logical fact, and it is hard
to
see tha t much coul d be done to prevent it.
A good critique of the neoconserva ti ve position (a lthough I have
some reserva ti ons a bout some po ints) in Chapter
II
is fo ll owed by a
very subtl e Chapter 12, in whi ch di aleti cal arguments rea ll y show their
power. The welfa re sta te is seen as an express ion of power by the lower
classes, and of middl e-cl ass conscien ce, in additi on to being a preven–
tive measure by the capitalists. Fi ghting for reforms is not simply co–
optation; it actua ll y changes the sys tem and the resulting contradic–
ti ons move it in the directi on of still furth er change.
Harrington 's book is well worth reading. It defies easy summary,
because many of its mos t illumin a ting rema rks a re made incidentally.
It is more a development o f a point of view than a genuine theory.
I find Lekachman 's book much less interes ting, even though my
list of di sagreements would be much shorter and even though his style
is much more g raceful and more witty. (These are very a typical
adj ectives to appl y to an economi st's writings; indeed, it would be
judged
a priori
incredibl e tha t out of three boo ks written by authors of
reputation the one by an economist would be the best written .) One
reason why my di sagreement would be limited is tha t in fact much less
is asserted than seems to be.
It
is certainl y cl aimed tha t modern
economi cs is virtuall y useless, but the charges lack specificity and
depth. He virtua ll y never quo tes doctrines of particul ar economists
which he rega rds as wrong and is sil ent on many of the issues which
rend the science (or if tha t honorific term is inadmissibl e, the profes–
sion). He is a great admirer of Keynes; most of pos twa r economics has
been the working out of Keynes's theori es, ye t somehow the result is
very di sappointin g to Lekachman (and indeed to mos t of us). Wha t has
gone wrong? Lekachman does no t enlighten us.
Wha t does he say? Economi sts have predicted badly; economic
policy has been hampered by a fear of offending corpora tions, particu–
larl y in regard
to
price controls but a lso o il po li cy; economics does not
understand or take account of power rela tio n s, hence did not predict
the oil cri sis, and also canno t ta ke account of either corporations or
labor unions; the tra ining of economi sts is directed towards the use of
the market as a tool of poli cy and as a measuring rod, and thi s is the
basis of their incapaciti es; economi c fJo licy requires moral vision as
well as (in fact in stead of) techni cal manipul a tion if it is
to
be useful.
There is littl e in thi s list tha t I would di sagree with, and I suspect
