From: Gary Mongiovi (MONGIOVG@STJOHNS.EDU)
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 - 17:59:16 EST
Jim was one of my teachers too. I knew of his death when it happened and it saddened me greatly. He was a profoundly kind and decent man. At the time I was his student I was still sorting through my own ideological issues: I was nowhere near as left-leaning as Jim was, and if truth be told I was quite suspicous of Marxism. But Jim was the first teacher I ever had who thought dialectically, and he at least convinced me that I needed to take historical materialism seriously. I guess that was the thin edge of a rather large wedge for me. Thanks, Jerry, for your reminiscences, which brought to mind warm thoughts of a fine man. Gary -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Gerald A. Levy Sent: Tue 3/16/2004 5:36 PM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Cc: Subject: (OPE-L) Remembering James F. Becker I learned recently of the death of James F. Becker, a retired member of the Economics Department faculty at New York University (NYU). This came as quite a blow to me since he was one of the most influential mentors that I have ever had. The news was made all the more difficult to stomach when I was informed that he had died "at least five or six years ago." About once a year for the last nine years I did a search under his name on the Internet, but for some reason I didn't pick up the telephone and call him or the NYU Economics Department. While his book, _Marxian Political Economy_, and several old articles are referred to online, there was nothing mentioned about his life or death. Although this is horribly belated (for which I can't help but feel pangs of guilt), for the benefit of all those who knew and cared about Jim I feel the obligation and desire to remember his life and influence. ****************************** James F. Becker, Marxist scholar and educator, was born in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on November 3, 1921. He received a B.A. in 1947 and an M.A. in 1949 from the University of Iowa. He taught journalism at the University of Iowa in 1947 and 1948 and economics in 1949. He also taught economics at Iowa State Teachers College in 1949 and 1950. He received his PhD from Columbia University in 1957 and was a Danforth fellow at Harvard University in 1959. Jim began teaching at NYU in 1953. When I was there he taught classes in introductory economics, contemporary economic issues, and Marxian economics. The latter was offered as a graduate course. His fields of specialization included political economy, the history of economic thought (with a particular interest in the life and thought of Thorstein Veblen) and class analysis. Like several others of his generation, he was schooled in neo-classical economics and only became radicalized and a Marxist after becoming a professional economist. In the "Acknowledgements" to _Marxian Political Economy_ (Cambridge University Press, 1977), he describes this transformation: "For some decades the tide of protest literature has been rising .... Having myself come to maturity in a troubled epoch -- of depression, World War II and its noxious aftermath, the cold war, of the new imperialism -- a mounting anger at first afflicted both mind and spirit. Unaware at first that this feeling had any connection with matters of social class, my early endeavors to understand the chaos, to find laws if not order within it, were pounded and beaten by events until I was forced to admit that the theories of the standard repertoire could only be brought into agreement with the main facts by twisting them beyond all point of contact with their assumptions and authentic formulations. For a time, confidence born of youth and a dexterous imagination preserved my faith in these theories, and these might have served indefinitely were it not for those world events of revolution and war, especially the Chinese revolution and the war in Southeast Asia, which forced the issue whether to abandon science or to find one up to the tasks that such events portended. No doubt many a Marxist has been made by the Pentagon; but if Saul has his thousands, David has his tens of thousands, and the Pentagon and the like fade into insignificance in comparison with the surging movement of the oppressed to whose ranks, I gradually discovered, I myself belong. It is not the oppressors -- who never learn -- but the oppressed who, in discovering their oppression, discover themselves." The dust jacket to _Marxian Political Economy_ asserted: "Unlike neo-Marxist economists, who attempt to reinterpret Marx in the light of Keynes, Professor Becker adopts an unalloyed Marxist approach to the leading problems of political economy." This is misleading, though, since his work was also very _original_ and he could not be said to be an "Orthodox Marxist." (or orthodox _anything_, for that matter). The sections of his book on the productive and unproductive _consumption_ of capital within the context of Marxian reproduction schemes and his class analysis of the of the "managerial phase" are particularly noteworthy and original. His analysis of the latter topics was also presented in "Class Structure and Conflict in the Managerial Phase" in _Science & Society_ (2 parts; Fall, 1973 and Winter 1973-1974). He published in other journals as well ranging from the mainstream _American Economic Review_ to the New Left publication _Studies on the Left_. The NYU Economics Department had a reputation for being _very _ conservative even by the standards of mainstream (marginalist) economists -- due in part to the presence of a contingent of Austrian-style economists. It also had a reputation for recruiting 'big names' like Fritz Machlup, William Baumol and Oskar Morgenstern (and as I was about to graduate, Nobel Prize winner Wassily Leontief). The 'big names' attracted most of the students and Jim was intellectually and professionally isolated in the department -- although in the 1970's another Marxist, Edward N. Wolff, joined the faculty. For a while I wondered how Jim was able to survive in that department. I came to realize that other faculty members viewed him as an eccentric (indeed, I think they viewed 'Marxist' as simply a form of eccentric) rather like the good-natured character that Jimmy Stewart played in the 1950 classic film "Harvey." I suspect that the reason he was able to survive in this milieu was simply because -- like the character of Elwood P. Dowd -- he was a very _likeable_ man. He was the kind of person who could disarm a rival with a smile and a laugh. Jim had genuine charm and charisma in the classroom. Even the most conservative business students at NYU liked taking his courses. He had a rather uncanny way of making radicalism and Marxism seem mainstream while making mainstream economics sound irrational and inhuman. I think he was able to pull this off in part because he was the very picture of Middle America. Indeed, he _looked_ and even _sounded_ like the actor Jimmy Stewart. More than one student commented on his striking mid-Western good looks: he was fairly tall, had endearing blue eyes, and (when I met him) wavy blond hair. He had a somewhat theatrical, but underplayed, way of teaching. He had what is known in theatre as _stage presence_. It was obvious that he thoroughly enjoyed teaching. Yet, in his introductory economics courses he hardly ever actually followed the text -- Paul Samuelson's _Economics_. Instead, he often lectured about what interested him -- especially his current research and writing. The students didn't seem to mind. It could get repetitive though -- I took four courses with him and in every one he spent hours presenting graphs on simple and expanded reproduction which were later published in _Marxian Political Economy_. A friend of mine, who I had known since our freshman year, ended up taking 3 courses with him even though her interest was in literature, she had no aptitude for economics or theory, and she never got good grades in Jim's classes. But, so strong was his appeal that she kept taking his courses. (This should not be misinterpreted -- he was married and devoted to his wife.) He also encouraged students to think for themselves and was very giving with his time. He was someone who _really_ cared about students and years after I left NYU he showed a genuine concern for my progress. Although he was my professor and I was his student, he treated me as an equal. He especially respected the fact that I was politically active both on and outside of the campus. When I took my first course with him, I remember talking to him after class and complaining about what I considered to be a highly inaccurate 'Appendix' on Marx in the 9th edition of Samuelson's _Economics_. He encouraged me to write a critical review in lieu of the midterm examination which I went on to do. After I trashed the 'Appendix' in my essay he even encouraged me to have it published. Although I never followed through, his encouragement and praise led me to continue studying -- and being critical about -- economics. While I was interested in economics, I initially took classes in history. Had Jim not taught introductory economics classes, I almost certainly would not have studied economics since a bad experience with a high school course in economics had turned me off to the possibility of studying that subject. But, since I knew that he was a Marxist and I could thereby circumvent the ordeal of being subjected to introductory economics courses taught by bourgeois economists, I ended up doing the equivalent of a double major in history and economics. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the course of my life would have been very different had I not studied with him since I would not have studied economics on the undergraduate or graduate level, would not have become a political economist myself, and -- continuing that line of reasoning -- would not have set in motion the events that led to the creation of OPE-L. In his later years he made frequent trips to Italy and combined relaxation with meetings with Italian Marxists. I was told he suffered from a prolonged illness prior to his death. He was survived by his wife but I was informed that she moved out of New York City. Jim Becker was a modest man and I have no doubt that he would have been somewhat embarrassed -- yet at the same time, appreciative -- about the above. Thousands of students benefited by knowing him and his intellectual legacy can _still_ influence Marxists today. If you don't believe me (or even if you do) then read _Marxian Political Economy_ (which, unfortunately, has long since gone out-of-print). Jim's life should have been celebrated and it saddens me that he could have died with -- apparently -- hardly any of his associates, former students and comrades taking note. How was this possible? I don't know. However, if there is someone who influenced your life who you haven't heard from for a long time, don't you think it's high time to attempt to contact her or him? At least now, the next person that conducts a search for "James F. Becker" on the Internet will know that he lived, died, struggled, was loved, and made a difference. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 00:00:01 EST