NATIONAL URPE CONFERENCE DETROIT, DECEMBER 27-30, 1970 U.R.P.E. Newsletter COLUMBIA RADICALS FIGHT FOR THEIR ACADEMIC FREEDOM Lawrence Tharp Radical economists at Columbia University have expelled the former chairman of the economics department from a course they were teaching and are preparing charges of intimidation and violation of their academic freedom against him. Harold Barger, a distinguished economist and highly respected member of the faculty will be accused before the University Senate committee on academic freedom of which he, by a seeming coincidence, is chairman. ‘he present economics department chairman, Kelvin Lancaster, has completely disassociated himself from Barger's actions. The strange case has produced a joking statement by Lancaster that Barger was auditing the course to assure outsiders that the in- structors were not teaching bomb-making in the class. "Barger may have reason to know that people with such suspicions have influence on the university," he explained later, no longer jokingly. The instructors of the course, entitled "Aspects of American Capitalism," emphatically agree that bomb-making is an important aspect of American Capitalism, though they did not intend to teach it. why the departmental chairman would try to make a joke out of Barger's conduct remains unclear, as do the real reasons for Barger's being in the course in the first place. Barger asked for and received permission to attend the course, newly established this fall, on the basis of his statement to its four instructors that he was there to learn about radical economics. At a departmental cocktail party, however, he jokingly stated in the Presence of one of the course's instructors that he was attending the class to answer questions from the alumni and trustees. Un- fortunately, the instructors couldwt agree what action, if any, to take in response to this joke. Finally, Lawrence Tharp, the editor of this Newsletter, asked Barger not to attend the class while he taught his portion of the course. Barger confirmed that he was there to assist the departmental chairman in answering alumni and trustee inquiries about the course, although he at the same time denied they had any legitimate interest in the course's content. He insisted he would attend the course as usual, in spite of the request that he not come, unless a university tradition which enabled an instructor to deny permission to attend class to anyone who had not registered for the course and paid his tuition were invoked. After considering the alternatives, Tharp advised Barger he would not be permitted to attend the class. The students and instructors in the course, after discussing the incident in class, decided by a nearly unanimous vote to ask Barger to appear before the class solely for the purpose of explaining his conduct, and then to leave.Send news items, comments, announce- ments, reports of activities, articles book reviews, reading lists, cartoons, art work, advertisements, and corres~ pondence to: CONTENTS Intimidation Resisted Detroit URPE Meeting Mid-West Regional Conference fe 3 4 Workshop on the Union 5 URFE Newsletter 6 7 9 9 c/o Lawrence Tharp 711 Hamilton Hall Columbia University New York, N. Y. 10027 Community Cooperatives Steering Committee Meeting American U. URPE Collective Washington Area News Political E it Michigan 12 if 7 A moter Tete colents e Copyright by the Union for Radical The British Colonial State 16 aoe i Ideology & Social Change 20 | Political Economics, 2503 Student National Office Report 21 | Activities Building, University of New York Area Report 22 | Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104 Statement by Harold Barger "I asked permission to attend meetings of the class from a desire to learn what Radical Economics is all about. Also, since I had authorized the course while department chairman and regarded it as an experiment, I wished to form an opinion as to its value and the desirability of continuing it in future years. Finally I hoped that I might more effectively rebut any possible criticism from inside or outside the University. Perhaps I could have explained these motives more thoroughly in advance, but at no time did I make any secret of them. Certainly I had no wish to exert pressure on anyone teaching the course, and I am astonished that Mr. Tharp felt intimidated, especially since I agreed to respect his desire that I should not attend." Barger's statement raises more questions than it answers. If Barger is so interested in radical economics, why has he never spoken to any of the four instructors on the subject? None of the instructors knew that Barger, a member of the College faculty who holds no official position in the School of General Studies where the course is taught, was actually evaluating the course. Why did Barger not inform the instructors he was judging their teaching of the course, their choice of its content, and their presentation of the material? If Barger did not wish to be secretive, why did he not inform the instructors he was attending the course to be able to communicate with the alumni and trustees about it? If Barger did not intend to intimidate the instructors, why did he have to be asked twice to leave the class, and why did he refuse the first request to leave? What is the relationship between Barger's joke that he was in the class to answer alumni and trustee inquiries and the departmental | chairman's joke that he was there to assure outsiders the instructors were not teaching bomb-making?The repercussions of this incident have yet to surface; defiance of a senior faculty member is not likely to go unrewarded. The Newsletter would appreciate receiving comments on how to cope with this situation and information on similar incidents which URPE members find themselves in. Political repression is only beginning in this country; we've got to get our heads together to learn how to combat this intimidation and the black-listing which is bound to follow. URPE has POWER -- let's start using it. WHEN IS THE ECONOMICS PROFESSION GOING TO STOP FUCKING RADICAL ECONOMISTS? DETROIT URPE MEETING At the National U.R.P.E. meeting we plan to have two substative sessions. One which is to treat the question of radical content in the teaching of economics will be coordinated by John Pool. This session is tentatively scheduled for Monday afternoon (1 to 5), the 28th in the U.R.P.B. room in Cobo Hall. As presently planned, the session will treat the teaching of the "principles" course from 1 to 3, then break off into workshops dealing with the "nitty-gritty" of teaching advanced courses in (1) economic development - international; (2) poverty - urban -racism; (3) monopoly capital, etc.; (4) labor economics; and (5) economic theory. In this regard, we feel that a large percentage of the member- ship has been involved in trying to work out viable alternatives to the Samuelson bullshit syndrome, and that everyone would benefit from discussion of this issue and circulation of relevant sylabii, bibliography, etc, We are asking that anybody who would like to participate in this session -- by making a presentation, simply rapping about your experiences, sending in course outlines, and/or leading a workshop -- to please write: John C. Pool, Department of Economics, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio 45431. The second session, coordinated by Bob Schoeplein, is a rap we might entitle "I Led Three Lives" -- Confessions of Ex-bourgeous Economists. Time and place has not yet been scheduled. Further information will be available. Throughout the conference, regional and national U.R.P.E. meetings will be held. The national meeting in particular will be concerned with planning the activities of the summer U.R.P.E. Conference tentatively scheduled for late August-early September in Colorado. Additional activities include films and guerrilla theater. We will run a lunch program at the conference and day-care facilities will be available. Those needing crash housing may write U.R.P.E., 2503 Students Activities Building, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48104. Pinally, U.R.P.E. will have a large room in Cobo Hall and a suite in the Sheraton-Cadillac. Check in with us when you arrive!!!MID-WEST REGIONAL CONFERENCE, John Pool Wright State University Program: "Reform versus Revolution, the Radical Dilemma’ paper by: John Charles Pool, Wright State University "Reform?, Revolution?, in the Ghetto discussion led by: Herb Thompson, City of Cleveland Workshops on problems of the inner city Topics: The Black Revolution, Community Development, The Development of Cooperatives, Dealing with the bureaucracy, and others. U.R.P.E. Mid-west regional business meeting Topic: “U.R.P.E., What's it all About?" by Bob and Patsy Posner, Oberlin Other Business “america and the World Revolution" paper by: Frank E, Wagner, University of Missouri at Kansas City Presentation and discussion by The Imperialism Workshop, University of Michigan The mid-west regional U.R.P.E. conference was held at Oberlin College October 10 and 11. Everyone participating felt the meeting was a very to- gether experience. Nearly 100 U.R.P.E. members attended from as far as Kansas City and Florida and a National Steering Committee was held concurrently with 9 of the 12 members attending. Saturday morning the conference began with a paper by John Pool(Wright State) dealing with the question of "Reform vs. Revolution". John argued that radicalism means revolution and that reform means just the opposite- Therefore, radicals who work as reformists are not being consistent. The consensus of the ensuing discussion was that (1) reform may be necessary in the humanitarian sense, (2) reform may create radicalism through education and frustration and (3) that reform programs should be differentiated as to their effects on the establishment. Some reform prograns may be a threat (e.g-» coops) others (e.g., the guaranteed annual income) may simply contribute to stability and the status quo. This was followed by a discussion by Herb Thompson (city of Cleveland) who argued that the question may be only sematic and who discussed his ex periences and frustrations working in conmunity organizing. After lunch the group broke into workshops dealing with alternative societies, cooperatives, union problems, and the Black Revolution. Most of the evening business necting was devoted to discussion at how U.R.P.E. menbers could relate to the problems of Chicano migrant workers in north-west Ohio and a very together presentation by R. Velazquez, a F.L.O.C. organizer. It was decided that interested menbers would meet with F.L.0.C. in November to discuss U.R.P.E. involvement. The rest of the meeting mostlycentered on the need to have available de-mystified versions of papers and articles treating radical economic issues. The Wright State collective agreed to try to prepare something and the Review editors agreed to consider publishing such material. Anyone who has written anything in this vein should send it to Howard Wachtel c/o Review. Following the meeting a party happened, which featured apple cider made according to a formula known only to Bob Posner. Sunday morning Gene Wagner, (University of Missouri, Kansas City) just back from two years in Latin America and India, presented a very together paper on the World Revolution. Gene argued that America is guilty of both the sin of omnission and commision because, on the one hand, she has been unable to pro- vide viable techniques to develop the Third World through capitalism, and on the other, she has been the major military force preventing alternative systems to be employed. He then documented his case in a very persuasive way and this was the highlight of the conference. Barry Bluestone followed by discussing the activities of the Michigan Imperialism Workshop and invited every member to join them in what may be the first definitive study of the im- perialistic process. WORKSHOP ON THE UNION: CHAMPION OR OPPRESSOR? Joe Powell There was general agreement that unions had indeed benefitted a number of working people in the past, especially in the capital intensive industries. Unions, however, have out-lived their use- fulness, except for certain low income groups who are not yet unionized or who have weak unions. In fact, part of the problems of poorer working people, of minority groups and of women are a con- sequence of unions excluding them from membership--sometimes acting on their own, and at other times acting in concert with management. On a whole range of issues, such as import tariffs, the war, taxes, etc., unions more often than not are increasingly aligning themselves with businessmen against the interests of the people. The leadership of the national unions is increasingly separated from their local membership. Although there was more or less general agreement on the problems of unions, such unanimity was not to be found on the question of what to do about these problems. Two main approaches developed: The first stressed trying to alter the present course of the unions, whereas the other approach said that it's impossible to alter existing unions; therefore, let's bypass them completely and organize about other institutions, such as schools, etc., for bringing about political reforms needed for forcing change. Workshop on Community, Communes and Alternate Life Styles Steve Stamos The purpose of this workshop was to discuss alternative life styles to replace and set an example for the middle and upper class materialistic and consumption gorged modes of living. The communal arrangement was explored considering its benefits and advantages: for example, meaningful interpersonal relations, community, forum for political activity, etc. The problems and disadvantages of such a life style was also discussed at length. Some time was given to the philosophical issues involved in mapping out a new life style in pursuit of a total cultural movement.COMMUNITY COOPERATIVES AS COUNTER-INSTITUTIONS* Dick England Mary Stevenson University of Michigan Community-controlled cooperative enterprises can be an important component of a broader Movement strategy and program, Perhaps their most important potential is in serving as schools for socialist education, i.e. as means of creating and increasing popular conscious- ness of a socialist alternative to corporate capitalism. By partici- pating in a cooperative, people can learn experientially that economic ——_sCF=_ purely selfish motivation, status distinctions, and differential material rewards. In addition to building socialist awareness, local coops can also offer material support to other community organizing and service activities. Because the net revenues from the enterprise xemain under the democratic control of the community, they can be ear-marked for use in such community projects as medical clinics, legal aid, free breakfasts for school children, funding new coops, etc. However, the co-existence of a powerful corporate economy along- side the nascent socialist economy creates several actual and poten- tial problems for the coops. First, the ideology of bourgeois in- dividualism is very pervasive in American society, even within the workingclass, The result is that many coop supporters are initially motivated, not by a sense of responsibility to the entire enterprise and community, but by a desire for personal gain. For example, ab- senteeism may pose a problem because some employees are, for the first time, not subject to the authoritarian discipline of the foreman or boss. Consumers may initially expect substantial price cuts, which is understandable in poor neighborhoods, but which prevents the coop from accumulating emergency reserves or financing community service projects. In addition, it is questionable whether community coops can offer substantially lower prices or generate significant flows of community-controlled funds because of the sectors in which they are most likely to be operating. Community groups, especially those in minority neighborhoods, do not normally have access to the start-up capital necessary for entry into banking, manufacturing, transporta~ tion, or utility activities, Their limited access to capital funds re-determines their entry into retailing and service operations, which are already relatively competitive and which offer low profit margins and wage rates. Only if the coop offers poor service and exploits its community employees (the extreme case being volunteer labor) can if offer substantial price cuts and generate a community- controlled surplus. *these notes are the result of a workshop on coops held at the October Mid-West Conference in Oberlin, Ohio. Several particpants who had helped to organize coops in northern Ohio (a gasoline station in a Chicano neighborhood) and in southern Texas (grocery stores and credit unions) were especially helpful in relating socialist theory to practice.A potential source of difficulty is the dependence of community coops on corporate suppliers. Unless the coop develops alternative channels of supply, it may be subject to shipment delays and price Giscrimination espbcially if it is sponsoring community political organizing. To the extent that retail coops succeed in cutting prices in their own communities, they may be subject to retaliatory price cutting by corporate chains which can afford to subsidize losses jn a few local areas. (In such a situation, the coop would at least have won the political victory of temporarily reducing prices.) Despite these problems, we can expect the creation and success of scommunity-oriented coop enterprises. This opportunity for corporate- cooperative co-existence exists because-.coops do not constitute an immediate economic threat to the core of monopoly capitalism. So jong as large corporations maintain control of the monopolized, highly profitable, growing sectors of the American economy, the ruling class is probably willing to tolerate small socialist enterprises in its competitive, low-profit periphery. Only if the coops emerge as a litical threat to the interests of corporate capitalism, by creating Popular consciousness of = socialist alternative, will corporations and the state join the battle. in earnest. Steering Committee Meeting eens Committee Meeting Larry Sawers American University The URPE steering committee meeting during the Midwest Regional Conference lasted only a few hours (a record!) and was fairly desultory except for one inflammatory issue, the location of the national conference next summer. The matter is a complex one, and I am a passionate partisan in the debate, so I do not expect this discussion to satisfy everyone. Everyone on the steering committee felt that the West Coast contingent of URPE has been largely ignored throughout our brief history. All of the national conferences as well as all of the steering committee meetings have been held in the East even though a quarter of our membership lives west of the Rockies. Some of the steering committee felt that the next national conference should be held in Colorado in an attempt to enlist the active participation of more West Coast people. It was also thought that an outasight place like the Rockies would attract a large enough group from the East that the camp would be a financial success. (Past experience has shown that we need more than a hundred persons for a five or six-day conference to make things work.) Alternative solutions to the West Coast problem were suggested. Two separate conferences, one in California and one in Pennsylvania, linked nightly by transcontinental telephone was discussed as well as subsidizing the transportation of some West Coast people to the East. ‘The reasons given for supporting either of these Proposals were as follows. First, any family with young children (six months to six years) would be virtually prohibited from at~ tending since young children do not travel lightly. Even Calif- ornia is two long days away from Colorado. A related argument.against the Colorado location is that some URPE members do not want to bring their families along. Some wives resent having their vacations planned around their husbands' professional in- terests. But if the husband goes alone, this means for most men, nine days away from their families (five days at the conference plus 40 non-stop hours of driving from New York, each direction). There are few family men who want to leave their families for a week and a half to talk about economics. In any case, we should not encourage this since it is not fair to the wife to have the kids alone for such a long period. The husband cannot even take some of the kids with him (and leave others with the wife) since as I have said kids do not travel well. Thus, whether the wife would want to accompany her husband or not, having the conference in Colorado will prevent most URPE members with small children from coming. A second objection to the Colorado site was that for the last two summer conferences, a very large portion of those attend- ing were new to URPE and just dropped in to see what it was like. Tt was thought that there are very few uncommitted who would just drop in to Colorado. A third major group excluded by holding the conference in Colorado would be those who could not afford the transportation: women who cannot hitchhike and have little bread, families who must travel by car, stopping at exhorbitant motels along the way, etc. Thus the opposition to Colorado was not just on the grounds that not enough people would attend to make it a financial success, but that certain classes of indi- viduals were excluded. After all of these issues had been brought out, the vote was taken and there was an even split between the three alternatives: Colorado, Pennsylvania, and both. In an archtypal Arrow-type situation, our objective function was intransitive, and there was no way to achieve a rational solution. In any case, the Conference will be held in Colorado if we can find a suitable site. I have bothered to write this note not only because the membership should know why decisions are made, but because T think the basic issues involved here are important and that the entire membership should be thinking about them. First, how can we integrate the two Coasts into one group or should we? Second, how can we plan our activities realizing that they affect more than the membership but also the families of the membership? The Wakikatina conference in August explicitly turned down a proposal to place a woman on the steering committee to represent the interests of nonmenbers who are affected by our activities. Perhaps this should be reconsidered. But all of us should devote more thought to these problems. Note: If you missed Charles Reich, “the New Generation" in The New Yorker, September 26, 1970, get it. It's about 80 pages long-— Scattered among the Tiffany and Cartier ads for $5,000 diamonds--and its good; in fact, the last half is excellent. Jim Weaver : American UniversityTHE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY U.R.P.E. COLLECTIVE ae I have been asked to write a brief note describing the activities of the American University URPE collective since Howard Wachtel, who is the chief organizer, is too modest to report on our activities. The group combines social and intellectual activities. We meet every two weeks in someone's home. Faculty members, students, secretaries, wives, husbands, friends are welcome. le usually have 15 to. 20 people attending including two philosophy professors and one sociology professor. Our first meeting in 1969 was a discussion of Herb Gintis' dissertation. Since that time we have discussed Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, C. Wright Mills, The Marxists, R. D. Laing, The Politics Of Experience and the Divided Self, Theodore Roszack, The Making of a Counter Culture, Alan Watts, The Way of Zen, B. F. Skinner, Walden Two, Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward, George Kateb, Utopia and its Enemies. Everybody reads the book prior to the meeting and we discuss it. The main effort last year was devoted to figuring out how to make a scientific revolution in economics--how to revolutionize economic theory and economic education. We haven't gotten very far. Last summer we got interested in utopias. This fall we made use of Herb Gintis' presence in D.C. to have him discuss hierarchical organizations and social classes, Barry Bluestone was also here and reported on the imperialism workshop at Ann Arbor. One of our projects this year is going to center on the status of women, a day-care center at A.U., and the possibilities for part-time work. Larry Sawers is organizing a research and action program in this area. One of the main efforts of our group is to overcome the usual academic sniping and throat-cutting that occurs when economists get together, We are trying to relate to each other as human beings and to be helpful to each other in our work and in our efforts to learn more about the conomy and the society. If we are going to change American society into a joyous society (well--at least a liveable society), we have got to start with our relationships with those people we work with every day. This is primarily what the AU/URPE collective is all about. WASHINGTON AREA NEWS Early in October a General Meeting of the Local Area Collective was called for October 24, 1970 to be held at the American University. This meeting was called to discuss and plan the development of local. organization and regional coordination of the Washington Area U.R.P.E. Collective. The purpose of the collective would be to direct its efforts toward changing American society. Discussion centered around the following topics: a. Initiation of a number of organizational meetings to be held at local colleges and junior colleges. The intent of these meetings would be to present the ideas of the Union for Radical Political Economics both as a national organization and as a local action group, 910 and to initiate discussion of radical economics in general. tt is hoped that by exposing students and faculty to our organization a continuing discussion of radical economics and radical approaches to specific problems within the field of economics will develop, using the local U.R.P., collective as a vehicle towards these ends, The format of these meetings could either center around short presentations of radical economics with ensuing discussions related to local U.R.P.E. activities and interests, or could be discussions centered around specific problem areas. b. The planning of a major conference to be held on February 6, 1971. The purpose of this conference would be to provide a vehicle whereby interested persons could initiate discussion, possibly re- search, on problems presented. At a meeting held October 29th by those interested in planning the February conference it was decided to plan meetings to be held at the various colleges and universities in the area immediately. These meetings would be to encourage interested students and faculty to discuss radical economics and ideas and to acquaint interested persons with one another. These meetings will be held prior to the February conference to start a dialogue of radical ideas. The conference will be held on February 6th as planned. Its purpose will be to further discussion of radical economics and to present research on topics of interest. One such topic which is al- ready evolving is the distributional aspects of Government Expenditure. If developed, this topic could lead to coordinated research by both the Ann Arbor and the Washington Area collectives. It was decided that one "outside" (i.e. non-local) speaker will be invited to discuss his or her ideas, but that the main thrust of the conference would be to further discussion of ideas, research and areas of interest. All are invited. ¢. Discussion at the October 24th meeting also centered upon the approaches to teaching radical economics at all levels of academic life. For this particular part of the meeting, individuals broke down into sub-groups of interest. The topics discussed were: 1. the approach to teaching Political Economics; 2. the integration of radical economics into community work and into work being done by economists outside the university; and 3. open enrollment for lower income students. Though the discussion groups were successful, it was agreed that further developments will be contingent upon the success of current courses and upon further thought and discussion of the subjects, both within the collective and with other regions. Thus, the Washington Area collective has decided to center upon several specific areas. of interest. Of primary concern is the initia- tion of collective research, discussion, and the presentation of ideas of interest to radical economists. Prior to this effort, however, the collective will try to increase interest in the study of radical economics in the Washington Area. In order to make the collective an active, working group, energies will be directed toward the problems of increasing participation in, and exposure to, radical economics. It is felt that persons who are interested in U-R.P.E. or radical economics in general, are perhaps unaware of its existence and/or are unfamiliar with the large number of people who are also interested in the topic. Thus, it is our immediate task to use U.R.P.E. as a vehicle for organizing people into an active approach to economics through discussion and envolvement with people of similar interests.It is also felt that if the Washington collective is to become a viable force for social change in America, one further task must be accom- plished. Radical economics is an approach, an active envolvement in, the more general problem of human behavior within a societal framework. If radical economics is to become a force, rather than a topic, persons must realize that it must be integrated into their lives; that they encorporate the radical approach to economics into their working situation, whether they be students, faculty, Government workers, or whatever their vocation. The study of radical economics is the deter- mination to approach the subject of man in a new way, the determination to integrate the concept of man back into economics. This approach is not a term paper, an article read during coffee breaks, or a peripheral aspect of our lives and work; this approach is a commitment to use economics as one force for change. ‘This change is for mankind. As Mike Zweig stated, "Join us!"; but realize that by joining us you are commiting your energies to a new way of looking at things, and this takes time, your time; but, it is worth it. WASHINGTON AREA CONFERENCE FEBRUARY 6, 1971 TOPIC: Impact of Governmental Expenditure on the Distribution of Income For information, contact: Howard Aylesworth Economics Department American University Washington, D.C. 20016 JOIN URPE Name Ades : Zip code Annual Dues: Low income dues: $7.50 High income dues: $15.00 ‘As amembor of URPE you will receive all publications during the next 12 months including the URPE Newsteter, the Review ‘of Radical Political Economics, cessional Papers, etc Please send us the names and addresses of friends and collegues who might be interested in URPE. SEND TO: The Union for Racial Political Economics 2509 Student Activities Building ‘The University of Michigan ‘Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 1112 Note: This is a proposal submitted by Ann Arbor URPE to the UM Dept. of Econ; it is currently being debated by faculty-student curriculum committees at the undergrad and grad levels. Initial faculty reaction has been bitter in many cases, the ostensible reason being not the substance of our critique, but the political form of our presentation. We've been conducting a petition drive to demon- strate mass support and some faculty think this smacks of "pressure politics." POLITICAL ECONOMY FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN —— This proposal, which calls for curriculum reform and changes in departmental hiring priorities, attempts to take into account changes in the social reality which economists analyze and the consequent changes in the academic interests of undergraduate and graduate students. As we enter the 1970's, it is clear that the recognition of these changes within the profession is increasingly widespread. The success of the Union for Radical Political Economics in organizing younger economists, is one manifestation. Additional evidence is the trend toward course innovation: Economics 205 at the University of Michigan, Social Science 125 at Harvard, a graduate course in political economy at American University, and a course in imperialism and economic development at San Jose State College are a few of the pro~ liferating examples. The American Economic Association has recognized the development of a new style of economics by holding a session on imperialism at its 1969 annual meetings and by commissioning a survey article on the current state of American radical economics. (See Martin Bronfenbrenner, “Radical Economics in America: A 1970 Survey," Journal of Economic Literature Sept., 1970) Publishing houses have Glready noted the emergence of a new field and have begun to print anthologies in radical political economy, the first two being edited by David Mermelstein and Maurice Zeitlin. Proposed Political Economy Course Sequence In recognition of these trends, we propose that the department create a three-course sequence in political economy. The first course, a comprehensive introductory survey of the field, would be at the freshman/sophomore level and have no prerequisites. The second course, for juniors and seniors, would require at least Economics 201-202 and would analyze a limited set of political economic topics from a variety of perspectives (neo-classical, Marxian, institutional, etc.). The third course would be a graduate-level research seminar, which could devote an entire semester or academic year to a particular research topic, e.g. militarism, discrimination, the dynamics of. income and wealth distribution, etc. ‘The seminar would presumably survey the existing literature, formulate a research design, and then pursue a set of research projects. We believe that a political economic approach to the study of social processes is indispensable because of analytic omissions in the inherited body of conventional economic theory and because of significan institutional changes in the societies which economists study. Among the theoretical limitations of orthodox economics areits denial of the role of economics as ideology,* its restrictive and mechanistic motivational assumptions, the primacy of allocative and stabilization questions over distributive questions, and its failure to seriously study the links between the differential access of dif- ferent social classes to state power and the long-term persistence of class stratification in capitalist economies. Recent institutional developments in American society have only tended to increase the theoretical limitations of orthodox analysis. The growing predominance of corporate and state bureaucracies and the relative decline of market exchange as a mode of decision-making have led to a blurring of the polity-economy dichotomy. The growing centralization of decision-making power and continuing social class stratification raise fundamental questions of individual freedom and alienation within the affluent society. The growth of world trade and investment, the multi-national corporation, and global military capacities raise questions of imperialism and national self-determin- ation. Because of its relative inattention to these historical develop- ments, orthodox economics is frequently incapable of meaningfully analyzing some of our most pressing social problems. The very phen- omena which are a prime significance are sometimes taken as “parame- ters" or "exogenous variables," not as consequences of the political economic organization of production, consumption, and distribution. Racial discrimination is seen as a "taste" or "preference" of economic actors. Foreign military interventions are seen as the consequences of "bureaucratic misperceptions." The political economic approach attempts to “endogenize" a number of phenomena, such as militarism, racial and sexual discrimina~ tion, and alienation, by drawing on psychological, political, and sociological concepts and models and by drawing on historical, as well as short-run statistical, evidence. ‘That this may be scientific- ally useful and even necessary has been argued as follows: It is clear, however, that logically there is nothing fun- damental about the traditional boundaries of economic science. In fact, a system may be as broad or as narrow as we please depending upon the purpose at hand; and the data of one system may be the variables of a wider system depending upon expediency. The fruitfulness of any theory will hinge upon the degree to which factors relevant to the particular investigation at hand are brought into sharp focus. And if, for the understanding of the business cycle a theory of governmental policy is demanded, the economist can ill afford to neglect this need on the ground that such matters lie outside his province. As for those who argue that special degrees of certainty and empirical validity attach to the relations encompassed within the traditional *Scholars in other social sciences are apparently less impressed by the extreme positivist dichotomy between "positive" and "normative" science than are economists, The U. of M. Political Science Dept. has devoted an entire course to questions of the implications of positivist and post-positivist philosophy for the methodology of science. 1314 limits of economic theory, we may leave to them the task of proving their case. Paul Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis, p. 9 This broadening of approach is essential if we are to understand the growing conflicts and apparent irrationalities in American society and to discover in what ways and to what extent they flow from our political economic order. It is precisely because a new and broader approach to economics is necessary that recognition of the existence of alternative trends in economic and social thought is at this time so crucial. We feel that such recognition should take at least two forms: first, more attention to alternative perspectives should be given in some of the existing courses, as Professor Fusfeld proposes to do with respect to American Radical Economic Thought, and as we propose with respect to the theories of the Cambridge School; second, alternative scholarly approaches should be represented within the faculty. While we do not want to discourage the current faculty from incorporating some of the topics outlined below into their courses, we propose that the Department hire one or more full-time political economists to staff the new course sequence beginning with the 1971- 1972 academic year. Although conservative political economists certainly exist, e.g. Milton Friedman or James Buchanan, we have a strong preference for initially hiring one or more with a radical perspective because of the issues they are more likely to address. (Liberal thought is already well represented within the current faculty.) Among the prospective candidates are Gabriel Kolko (possible joint appointment with Dept. of History), James O'Connor, Herbert Gintis, Michael Zweig, David Mermelstein, Stephan Michelson, Judith Shapiro, Michael Kidron, Michael Reich, and Arthur McEvan. The addition of any of these candidates would broaden the scope of research within the Department and improve the access of students to a truly liberal education. Potential topics in political economy include the following: Economics as science and ideology a, theories, facts, and social values b. the uses of social science ¢. alternative scientific paradigms: normal science and scientific revolutions 2. The dynamics of the distribution of wealth and power in America a. income and wealth distribution b. corporate ownership and control ¢. social class stratification a. the role of the state e. labor: the industrial working class; the new working class of the educated f£, the role of health, education, and welfare programs 3. The political economy of international relationsa. militarism, foreign aid, international agencies, multi- national corporations, foreign policy, and economic development b. historical case studies 4, The political economy of discrimination: racial, sexual, age-wise, and regional 5. The political economy of affluence a. production, consumption, alienation, and aspirations b. external diseconomies: pollution, Congestion, etc. 6. The political economy of crime and punishment a. organized crime: the monopolization of black markets b. the irregular ghetto economy c, the distributive effects of criminal justice: bail and fines, imprisonment and future employment d. the economics of deterrence e. street crime v. white-collar crime 7. Systematic alternative: social goals and prerequisite institutions a. corporate capitalism, state socialism, communal socialism, anarchism Appendix A is a topical bibliography showing the existence of a relevant literature. Proposed Economic Theory Course Revisions In addition to the above proposals, we would also like to offer some observations on the type of economic theory which is presently taught in the Department's theory courses. On the one hand, the perfectly competitive model is still the normal paradigm around which the micro-theory courses and many of the courses on applied economics organize discussion. On the other hand, the courses on macro-economics and related fields assume that the standard version of the complete Keynesian system is an essentially satisfactory model of the macro- economy which simply needs some additional econometric verification and estimation. While we recognize that these comments apply equally well to a substantial majority of the departments of economics in this country, we feel that these doctrinal premises are too restrictive and that, as a result, many students are unaware of several fundamental theoretical controversies in the current literature, or at least ill- prepared to critically assess these contending schools of thought. Admittedly, the theory courses do recognize the existence of the "Chicago School," though somewhat begrudgingly. However, the more fundamental doctrinal controversy between the "neo-classicals" and the "Cambridge School" is almost completely ignored despite the fact that the debate has been raging for twenty years in a number of reputable journals. According to a recent survey article by G. Har- 1516 court (Journal of Economic Literature, June, 1969), the dispute centers around such crucial issues as the relations between the “production process, price formation, and income distribution." The debate is of no small moment because the exchanges revolve around "the relevance of equilibrium analysis and of maximizing behavior, for it is the general methodology of neo-classical analysis, rather than any particular result, which basically is under attack." It would seem to be in the interest of students of economics to be aware of the seriousness of these attacks on the foundations of neo-classi- cal analysis. Even within the limits of neo-classical economics, several theorems have been derived in recent years which cast serious doubt upon the viability of any notion of competitive efficiency. Shell and Stiglitz conclude in their article "The Allocation of Investment in a Dynamic Economy (Q.J.E., Nov., 1967) that The fact that imperfections and frictions are stabilizing influences should be reassuring to some advocates of the capitalist economy. However, to the classical economist, who argues for the competitive pricing system on the basis of its efficiency in allocating resources, it raises the problem of whosing that a dynamic economy where trading can exist at any moment of time acts as if all transactions took place in an atemporal Walrasian market. Roy Radner has shown in "Competitive Equilibrium under Uncertainty" (Econometrica, Jan., 1968) that a general equilibrium theory incorporating the most important aspects of money and liquidity cannot be based on a “classical” approach with thoroughgoing optimizing, and therefore that there may be little hope of extending the classical theorems of welfare economics to the more general case. Since Keynes attacked orthodox economics on much the same ground as some of the more recent literature, we suggest a problematic, rather than econometric, approach to Keynesian theory. Such works as A. Leijonhufvud, Keynesian Economics-and the Economics of Keynes and R. W. lower, "the Keynesian Counterrevolution? A Shéoretival Appraisal” are representative of this more critical approach. A NOTE ON THE BRITISH COLONIAL STATE* Geoffrey Kay The classic view of the British colonial state is that it was the political instrument of British capital in its transformation of large parts of the world into exporters of raw materials and importers of British manufacturers. Formally committed to laisser-faire, its main policy goal has been interpreted as the maximisation of trade, and economists, particularly structuralists, have argued that the result of the international division of labour it engendered is modern under- development. This interpretation is inadequate and can only be accepted in part.First: it fails to deploy any Marxist concepts in its analysis. In particular, no mention is made of the mode of production or class structure. As a result it is unable to develop any adequate theory of the colonial state. Second: its central hypothesis that the main strategy of colonial states was the maximisation of trade cannot be substantiated empiricall this is certainly true in the case of Ghana--and it does not deserve the prominence it normally receives. Thirdly: its concept of economic structure is largely restricted to the pattern of production and it organises its analysis around the concepts of development and under-development. Such a one-dimensional approach to the problem deflects attention from the relations of pro- duction and politically has led to an exaggeration of the progressive significance of independence movements and policies of industrialisatio and national reconstruction pursued through the medium of administrativ planning. The colonial state was part of the metropolitan capitalist state and _must therefore be considered, in part, as a capitalist state itself This means that it had a two-fold historic mission. 1. The establishment of the necessary preconditions at the political level (also at the juridical, social and ideological levels though this aspect of its history will be largely ignored here) for the dominance of the capitalist mode of production in its area of sovereignty. 2. The support of capital at the economic level--i.e. the facilitation of accumulation. The integration of these two aspects of colonial political economy as seen through British eyes, the official ideology of colonialism can be readily summarised. For the British the peoples of the colonies were ‘natives in a most elementary state of civilisation', far below the British on the evolutionary ladder both materially and in other no less important ways. The task of the British was clear: progress had to be made on both fronts. Fortunately simultaneous advance on both fronts was not only possible but a necessary pre-condition of advance on either: Adam Smith and William Wilberforce marched forward hand in hand. On the one hand the colonial government was to build up the economy with a policy of free trade and by concrete efforts through railway construction and direct assistance to export producers; on the other, by a low and judicious taxation of the expanded trade that re~ sulted, it could raise the revenue necessary for further expansion and the building of such things as schools and hospitals which would bring the colony the less tangible advantages of British progress. If in the process British capital were to profit, then this was further evidence, if any were needed, of the marvellous order of things: philanthropy at 5 per cent was the vision of the epoch. Needless to say, reality stubbornly failed to correspond with this vision. U.R.PE POWER -Contradictions within capital 1. Contradictions arose between the various fractions of British capital. For instance, commercial capital (and later industrial capital) pressed colonial governments to fulfill the promise of trade maximisation which inevitably meant increased public expenditure on railways, harbours and so on. On the other hand the governments either through self-imposed discipline or pressure exercised in London would only finance such projects by loans floated in the City and finance capital demanded security and a steady return. (This affected not only the rate of public investment and the choice of projects but also their financial management. Projects were only selected and undertaken if they would produce sufficient revenue to cover running costs and meet interest charges and repayment of capital. This explains the colonial bias for railways over roads, even where the latter were technically more suitable.) Thus colonial governments found themselves trapped between those fractions of capital--commercial and later industrial--which looked for rapid expansion, and finance Capital on the other, ‘This latter found a ready ally in mining and plantation capital whose limited horizons corresponded with the political definitions of colonial governments. 2. Contradictions existed between British capital and forms of local capital (not comprador) where the latter reached any substantial development. One form in which they presented themselves to colonial authorities was competing demands for state assistance on matters like the provision of transport and the recruitment of labour, but the existence of local capital was most important when it was involved in external trade for here it placed the colonial government in a sharp dilemma by fracturing the coincidence that existed between the maxi~ misation of trade and the profitability of British capital. such a situation arose, for instance in Ghana, where the cocoa industry re- mained in the hands of Ghanaian capital and accounted for over 66 per cent of exports: British controlled mines accounted for about 10 per cent. In this situation the colonial government pursued a policy that favoured mines rather than cocoa and consequently depressed the level of trade of the colony: without this policy the mines would not have been able to stay in business. In other words, trade maximisation was only pursued by colonial government's when it directly coincided with the interests of specific fractions of British capital. The Political Weakness of the Colonial State the Political Weakness of the Colonial state The ability of colonial states to handle contradictions of these kinds as well as to maintain control of situations in which rapid accumulation occurred, was limited by its political weakness in two ways, 1. The very fact of being colonial meant that a colonial state was unable to use the techniques of representative government to absorb into its own apparatus the contradictions that arise from the forma- tion of classes and the ensuing struggle between them under the capitalist mode of production. 2, In the twentieth century British colonialism turned increasingly to indirect rule. The notion that existing political structures could be manipulated for colonial purposes and still remain viable over long periods was hopelessly misguided, nevertheless it did offer 78 Short and medium term possibilities for political domination. Theeffect of this strategy was widespread attempts to control the devel- opment of capitalism in the countryside--whether by local or British capital--as the changes in the relations of production it engendered eroded the basis of indirect rule. ‘The paternalist and anti-capital- ist texture of British colonialism has its real origins here. As a result capital in many parts of Africa--including British capital-- found expansion into the countryside difficult: it received little official support on such crucial matters as labour recruitment. Capitalism without Accumulation This proposition is clearly an exaggeration but it focusses on the manner in which colonial governments sought to reconcile the political and economic dilemmas that faced them. ‘Their response to their inherent political weaknesses was evasion wherever possible and support for the most reactionary elements in local society and the most conservative fractions of British capital. This suggests some general conclusions. 1. Underdevelopment as it is understood by writers like Frank can be explained art by the sluggish rate of capital accumulation brought about bythe weakness of imperialism at the political level. 2. Decolonisation can be interpreted, again in part, as an attempt by metropolitan capital to remould its political apparatus to allow more rapid accumulation to take place. This change coincided with shifts in power between the various fractions of metropolitan capital. Finally, we must note that the colonial state existed at a particular time in the development of capitalism and that the elements that determined it were in large measure specific to this historical phase. Almost certainly they differ, particularly in their conjecture, from those that determine in other capitalist states at other moments. This highlights the dangers of analyses that never get beyond abstract theorisation. *This paper is based upon a single case study-~the colonial state in Ghana in the first half of the twentieth century. It is written in general terms to facilitate discussion though its various propositions have not been tested against other than Ghanaian data. The above paper was presented at the Conference of Socialist Economists held at King's College, Cambridge, England, on October 17 and 18. Copies of the following full length papers, also delivered at the conference, may be obtained from Hugo Radice, 847 King's College, Cambridge, England, CB2 1sT: State Monopoly Capitalism -- Ron Bellamy Capitalist Planning and the State -- Bill Warren . Capitalist Growth and the Formation of the German State -- Dick Parker The Dual Economics of Transition: Nazi-Fascism -- Alfred Sohn-Rethel The Political Economy of Complicity -- Steve Merrett The Political Economy of U.S. Aid to Chile -- Philip O'Brien The State in Southern Africa -- Colin Stoneman Technology and the State -- Steve Bodington Declining Regions and the Labour Movement -- Dave Peers The State and Labour -- Dave Purdy : State Intervention in Industrial Structure in Britain -- Hugo Radice 1920 IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL CHANGE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL THOUGHT FROM 1750 - 1850 HERBERT GINTIS BASIC TEETS: Elie Halevy, The Growth of Philosophical Radicalism Havin A, Burtt, The English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill George Delton, Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies Mare Blaug, Economic Theory in Retrospect T, H. Kuhn, The Nature of Scientific Revolutions Vernon Venable, Human Nature: The Marxian View Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 18k SHORT COURSE OUTLINE: ‘The first five sessions are devoted to motivating the course, and consist of illustrations of the ideological nature of modern economic theory; dy discussing the complex relationship between theories end empirical data, ve realize that theories thenselves arise endogenously within ‘the process of historical social development, and the course is an attempt to describe causal relations between social development and theoretical ‘progress’ in economic thought. The next five sessions describe the development of Physiocratic thought within the setting of the rise of internal markets and capitelist indus- ‘try and agriculture in pre-revolutionary France. Physiocratic thought is treated as a theoretical ‘arn’ in attempting an alliance between the monarchy and newly-burgeoning capitalist agriculture(along British Lines, and following the agricultural revolution in Britain), ageinst merehant and industrial capital and the feudal aristocracy. The next four session describe the philosophical, political, and histor- ical developments against which background the classical British political economy developed. This is followed by five sessions on classical economics itself, emphasizing its role first in justifying capitalist economic relations, second in defending industrial capital against capitalist egriculture, and later, in defending capital in general against the demands of labor. The last five sessions describe the "branching' of Ricardian thought into neo-classical theory on the one hand, and Marxian on the other, and sketches these strands to the present. he emphasis here is on ‘the alternative 'welfare paradigns' involved in the two schools, as embodied in their positive economic theories. NOTES ON THE GENERAL APPROACH: This is the time of developing new economic theory, theory applicable to a human an unalienated society. ‘his requires the treatment of modern bourgeois theory not as a set of ‘verified propositions', but as a point in the historical and dialectical development of systens of thought, vearing a direct relationship to the class and ideological structures Of bourgeois society. It emphasizes: a) Distinguishing between the ideological end analytical aspects of the historical development of theory b) The relationship of axioms and assumptions to historical conditions ¢) The relationship between theory development and shifts in the structure of the social relations of production and the structureof class interests and class power 4) ‘he relationship between a body of economic theory and the two or three major social questions in response to which it was developed. MAJOR SUBSTANTIVE THEMES: First, I emphasize the concordant develorment of economic, political, and philosophical enalysis in the history of thought, and the impossibility of understanding economic theory without a deep appreciation of the others. In particular, theories of value are directly related to the formation and development of natural law and utilitarian political end philosophical systems, end mist be treated as such. Second, I emphasize the role of theories of value as the centrel analytic ool in all economic systems, from medieval times to the present. Moreover, T emphasize that value theories are more or less metaphysical in nature, and while they organize all of the positive, empirical aspects of theory, they have no scientific status in themselves-~they are part of the ideological superstructure of class conflict. Third, I treat all economic theory development as arising in response to ‘the extension of market relations into new areas of social interaction. Thus Mercantilism arose when markets in international trade opened up; Physfocracy when markets between town and country opened up, and vhen market activity in egriculture became significant; Classicism when markets in labor and capital developed; ete. Forth, the basic idea of a theory of value presupposes market activity, and the basic backdrop of bourgeois economic theory is 'market fetishism’; Since the frature of communities, the destruction of environment, the alienation of work-activities, and the perpetuation of inequalities of income, status, and power, are all related in intimate ways with the extension of market activities and particularistic control of resources permitted by markets in capital, land and labor, BOTH THEORIES OF VALUE AND ECONOMIC THEORIES DEPENDENT ON THEM MUST BE REJECTED. In this sense, ‘the further development of economic theory requires the destruction of economics as a separate discipline within the social sciences. REMARKS ‘This course vas quite well received by students with a variety of political persuasions, basically because students of economics were gratified to de presented with the ‘larger picture’ behind economic theory, by the chance to relate their technocratic training to their om lives and thetr ‘Liberal arts' development. Few came out of it with their faith in neo-classical theory intact, and it served its 'denystifying’ function. I would like to have treated modern theory(from 1850 to present), but I felt that the critical perspective developed by delving deeply into the earlier period would provide the student with the tools to analyse the later period himself. NATIONAL OFFICE REPORT We are now fairly well set up in Ann Arbor and any further inordinate delays in answering the huge flows of information and literature requests will be because we are off carousing in the streets. Financially, we are in our usual position of being close to bankruptcy (but then we have no assets to lose if we do go bank~ rupt), All brothers and sisters should raise money, like by lit- erature sales, library "memberships," new members, theater parties, etc.22 Actually, this is somewhat serious. we currently have accounts receivable for literature orders to the tuen of $1,700 but short term debts of $1,600 ($1,100 of which comes due in December). After Publishing the next issue of the Review and the Newsletter you are reading, we will have a bank balance of $0 (this is not a typo). Membership has increased by 11.19% from September 1 to November 2 which comes to a new member every day (problem: find our total membership. Answer will be Published in the next Newsletter). At an annual rate, our growth rate is 67.14% (the square root of which is .8193). A complete financial and organizational report will be given in December at the URPE meeting in Detroit. Barry Herman for the URPE Secretariat NEW YORK AREA REPORT Our first meeting this fall was held on Friday, November 13 with the specific objective of laying out a program which would unite us in radical economics action in our area. Perhaps because it was called on short notice it was attended by 17 members from the Columbia and Rutgers campuses only. The discussion brought forth several ideas for use on our campuses. Columbia University has just begun a Critique of American Capitalism course in an undergraduate division of the university taught by four members of URPE. A serious need exists fo initiate radical economics into the graduate curriculum, particularly in view of the mass discontent of the incoming students with the exist- ing curriculum. URPE members will work with the Graduate Economic Society to begin action for program change. URPE members from other universities are being invited to speak to students in the department to stimulate thinking on radical change. Campus activity, however, does not provide a useful focus for a New York wide chapter. Community action and involvement was discussed, and although endorsed for in- dividual action, also did not appear to provide a useful focus for members living as far apart as the City and New Brunswick, New Jersey. The project which the meeting decided upon and which received support from nearly all members present was the writing of an en- cyclopaedia of radical economics. ‘The encyclopaedia is conceived tobe similar to the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, and is intended to become a handbook for use by radicals in dealing with the traditional and superficial cliches, and the proponents of these Cliches. The encyclopaedia will critique traditional formualtions of economic concepts and attempt to construct a radical reformulation of these or substitute concepts. In addition to these articles it will Contain extensive bibliographies. A committee of volunteers is drawing up a list of concepts to go into the encyclopaedia; suggestions are, invited from all URPE members. The New York chapter and all other interested members of URPE will’ participate in the writing of the articles, with the coming spring as the target date for completion. As the final item of business, David Gold of Columbia University, was unanimously confirmed as the representative of the New York area to the URPE National Committee.Zezep UebTYOTH ‘3TOTIEG ‘¥-T9S xoa ‘309f0Zg LOTIONS TeoTpEN WOU Yao IOW PIO * Ating 20907 aAsssosBoiy oy) Jo onbyy149 y (901) > YPlIY POL g UIsOUB] Ja0Ky Aq 59) ae EPOZL|OO|PEY eq s]OD1POY stB>HOHA 9514A4 UOD *@ JOdspuLiG S114 (0E)_ Mave ‘A6a10u5 ® 515AjouD a1ow :z siadoy poy (d0S) volun A:ouousnjoney Desy Aog ’57) W! OSD +g Arooys ‘s001499]105 ‘e|doay oy) BuIAiog uO : | siodoy poy (3¢7) S3AND34S¥3d INIW3AOW Asoisiy ,59)4094 $9 wer su0ssey -— wos 9]2up, wor sayonty sou = 4g$9}8Q [30D Im) wasshs © u! paddosy (39)) BuoAend 24D ‘PLIOM PALL ays B WOUIDIA SIBTHIWY d AVOLINGOMINT MjOnsy (I$ ) Guyz1U0816 yosDasey * ( peipja1 pup Asojoeuig y wowus2ig poYy>! Aujno0g ay 40 2]0y YL 4A 5 apaqy YBnog uae yey * ws 1249" ene Suojg tUsuMSA05 B eYDIodIoD {50103 o4y4 - 0405 hog (292) —* Notwona3 su01i005 soylo uy sno04 “uo}ioI0qI7 5,uoWoy4 Jo hulowODg oOH4N}04 “9210 AusQ-Fouuy “4]on9y Ur Sloxpoja 220} “uouDAPELY Jo 4UlO4 ays 0] Sos OST DORE *f ‘o4no uy A>uDBunsU] PUD 4nO}]95 = POY YIIM 59]4425 MYT B41 (961) AIPM UOIS “4OnOY 40q0] O41 “YSN (02) 49pur] 494) A4 “Ze6 9861 ‘WO 4911060 axis JOM SOM UB}UOIUN [DLLISAPUl Mo} (gy) sponed JoutUed >POIE MYA ‘sNoNED 9114 —y JUDY © BuIplINg (90z) > ORT luvag “}/Ws}o1edwy uDotiowy Jo o;woudg ays :saounotey 991095 (392) ied p 2Iso0y :126un} Joog 21404 sSugjoq yti0y ou sowog “uordwnsuen (5¢))— eds -~ 0513 Busyjouos (cz) ADOIODS a 80 80d 9601 + 4209 92/1-£ #5101 19p10 7199 -aqang “ZI] ]pRLOW, “45 YRIAOLOW OByE ‘AuBIONIUN {TLOBWY Ai01205,,s1UEPAIS ‘7909 plo} jo1RNeD YANIg wos s9p10 “391d0D Q] uy) d1OU 404 s04g ,$21do0g TIOSIS 38. OL LON “#9PIC 94015400g ONY *YooqpUDH Jo11UO> YHNIg (S02) 2 nN esuajoq-s]@5 1p suoaity (d9¢)__ s801g 5,ajdoag ‘sm ayy 9020303 04 pain aso sdon (25 ) Waly uouotegn qwowsnoy ‘yooqpuoy eeuajeq jo>1poy (ge) 353330 TW3IGVa SION 49] MANY Jo onssy jDI29ds -~ og s,uowoyy | IF ‘ wornjonoy ys06u0q IN == (91014) Uoysueg jouSs0yy “uo!o19q17 5,090 \ Jo Auouos: ‘Azovoinjoney oary hog “voisI091 1) AYB14uowoyy ¢ sadeg poy (396) —F woplor woop *smoy oayoeioyg (252) > oom" W Aq MOYNEIU] “57, 4040] © 5,041 Ang “Y>myY OnOL ION AOW o7h GOES NOILVaaarT SNEWOM p10] Buno,, ayy Jo sodedsmau “oquojog (952) —e 9A1498|}09 5uy21U06 4) yoinosoy ~~ ozDy 0] ap a4a1s 507 jo A1OIs ous [OA C180G (956) —F (x wjosjeW -g uoury “s}0gng wor 5 sekoyy SowoU) “591451045 =~ oLaUIY y9DIg Jo s#04B04y y LOLS (> epag (102094 y20|@ AtBuorinjonoy Jo en6007) sJonoy ut so%3044 30/9 (202) — ‘Apr205 Uno WYO == Aung JOYiuDy ¥>0}g 94L O4 uoLIaAPOHNY Uy (32) — smonoy seyjuog p09 jo 4ededsnou “790, ,slox!0m o4my (9S) oa. ‘s2y0) 8 “ sz) Aung s0yiuog ened yy (52) * NOILa3a71 NOVTE LsSit Asouojajonoy jo anna] jo sadodsm 3P0}g 94) OF uoHIoNpoLU) ‘9/doay ay 4] MON © Asonuor u paddosp aq 04 + 0261 s2querdes aaeniveslin dadU.R.P.E. NATIONAL COMMITTEE West Coast Norris Clement and John Hardesty San Diego State College San Diego, Calif. 92115 South Larry Sawyers* and Howard Wachtel (Editor, Review) Dept. of Economics American University Washington, D.C. 20016 Gerald Peaboay* The Urban Institute 2100 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037 Ma tlantic David Gold and Lawrence Tharp (Editor, Newsletter) 711 Hamilton Hall Columbia University New York, N.¥. 10027 Sander Kelman and Sarah Diamant 109 College Ave. Ithaca, N. Y. *temporary The URPE National Committee exists to serve you, Justine Dakin 25 Lathrop St., and Walt Snyder 1111 Spring street Madison, Wisc. 53705 Dick England 507 Church Apt. #5 Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104 John C. Pool Dept. of Economics Wright State University Dayton, Ohio 45431 New England Bob Schoeplein Dept. of Economics University of Connecticut Storrs, Conn. 06268 Ralph Pochoda* 115 Museum St. Somerville, Mass. At-Large Pat Posner 148 Woodland: Oberlin, Ohio 44074 Bug them, Get Get their help in organizing them to speak to your department. Tell them what you need. your campus. Let them know you exist. Union for Radical Political Economics Ee First Class Mail 2503 Student Activities Building U.S. POSTAGE University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Address correction requested PAID 12¢ PERMIT NO. 62 aT FIRST CLASS MAIL