Henwood on Keynes

[Greg Nowell]

Henwood has made often, and in many avenues, his view
that Keynes was an aristocratic snot.  I think that
this view has some substantive basis and that it is
appropriate for a Marxist to point out that Keynes was
not always on the side of "the little man."  Maybe even
not ever.  And I think part of Henwood's critique is
that he (Henwood)  is allergic to the cynicism in
"Citizen Kane"--Kane, played by Wells--says that it is
better for the rich to defend the poor than that the
poor should defend themselves (with, for example, good
Marxist analysis).  I think this goes to the nub of
what Henwood dislikes in Keynes.

However, I think that Doug misses out on one point.  It
is not just "the man" or even "the man and *all* of his
work" that is at issue.  The fact of the matter is that
the GT can be used (regardless of Mr Keyenes'
dispositions) as a strong platform for a radical
critique of redistributive inequities, on grounds that
are unlike anything to be found in Marx.  So in that
sense it is new and useful.  The GT opens a wide avenue
for such an approach.  It may not have been fully
exploited by Keynes, and the fact that Keynes opened
the wide avenue does not make him a social radical.
But nonetheless it is a remarkable achievement, and one
not typically to be found among members of an elite
aristocracy.   Keynes did not fully exploit the radical
implications of his work; but others did.   Marx
respected Smith; Lenin begrudged Hobson respect for his
book on Imperialism, even though Hobson was a liberal
reformer.  But Doug is much harder on poor Mr Keynes,
though he has paid Mr Keynes the respect of reading him
closely & extensively.

And perhaps that's enough.

--
Gregory P. Nowell
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science, Milne 100
State University of New York
135 Western Ave.
Albany, New York 12222

Fax 518-442-5298