We have here in a nutshell the difference between being a radical who is an economist and an economist who is a radical. The latter looks for solutions to problems. The former asks the question of how the working class can achieve the kind of power (however partial) that can make "solutions to problems" a relevant concern.
This was my first major lesson in politics . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem with the nut in this nutshell is that I was a radical for quite some time before becoming an economist, and before having any thought of becoming an economist. The Rutgers econ dept was radioactive to radicals in the late 1960's. It was full of CIA agents, or so we thought. What I should have done was become Paul Davidson's gardener. All kinds of subsequent errors and misfortunes could have been avoided.
Then again, maybe I am a butterfly dreaming that I am a radical.
I do admit that my identity as a radical is less important to me than the chance to actually solve some problems.
mbs