>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.
I've read him closely & extensively because as I've also said, probably too many times, he should be read as Marx read Ricardo - as a highly illuminating bourgeois. And I agree that bits of the GT can be appropriated by Marxists and other radicals. But I'd say that Keynes himself was, and most Keynesians are fundamentally procapitalist and fundamentally elitist (a sin Brad De Long confesses to). I think bringing these points out in Keynes "the man" helps bring them out in Keynes "the texts."
Doug