announcements > David Gordon Lecture

Publication of David Gordon Memorial Lecture

David Gordon (1944-1996) was Professor of Economics at the New School for Social Research and Director of the Center for Economic Policy Analysis. His contributions focused mainly on poverty, discrimination, segmented labor markets, and long-run capitalist development. In his honor, The David Gordon Memorial Lecture is presented annually at the Allied Social Science Association meetings by an economist whose work follows in the tradition of his contributions. Not all David Gordon Memorial Lectures have been published in RRPE, but those that have been are listed here.

Current Published Lecture

“The 21st Century Crisis: Climate Catastrophe or Socialism” by Minqi Li (University of Utah), September 2011, 43(3): 289-301.
Under the current trend, the world is on track towards an extreme greenhouse state that threatens to destroy human civilization and nearly all forms of life on Earth. Without an end to economic growth, it is virtually impossible for meaningful climate stabilization to be achieved. However, both capitalist enterprises and states are constantly driven to expand production and consumption. The climate change crisis is but one of several long-term historical trends that are now leading to the structural crisis of capitalism. The resolution of the crisis and the survival of humanity require the building of a fundamentally different social system.

Previous Published Lectures

“Finance without Financiers: Prospects for Radical Change In Financial Governance” by Gerald Epstein (University of Massachusetts, Amherst), September 2010, 42(3): 293-306.
Abstract: In response to the financial crisis of 2007-2010, governments in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere have invested billions of dollars in financial institutions to prevent them from going bankrupt and from further disrupting the global economy. Despite these massive public bail-outs, a government and “elite” consensus has emerged that these nationalized or quasi-nationalized financial institutions should be privatized as soon as possible, and that, apart from modest changes in financial regulation, our economies should return to the status quo ante financial structure. I disagree. As the crisis reveals, “financier” dominated finance has a number of devastating flaws: it creates major externalities that contribute to financial and real economic instability; it promotes short-term investment strategies; it contributes to inequality; and it undermines economic efficiency and the achievement of social goals in the real economy. I argue that a better strategy for achieving economic recovery, restructuring, and widely shared, sustainable prosperity is to use public investments in the financial sector to build on the successful post-World War II experiences of publicly oriented financial institutions to create a stronger presence of “finance without financiers.”

“Guns and Butter Once Again” by William Darity Jr. (Duke University), September 2009, 41(3): 285-290.
Prior to the credit collapse in the United States and the visible onset of a profound economic crisis, a crisis of national fiscal priorities already had crystallized over the course of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Between 2001-2008 federal spending on domestic programs and needs had become more restricted than any other area of the federal budget, shrinking as a share of both the budget itself and as a share of overall economic activity...

“Radical Economics and Social Change Movements: Strengthening the Links between Academics and Activists” by Jim Stanford (Canadian Auto Workers), Summer 2008, 40(3): 205-219.
Abstract: The article considers the barriers to closer cooperation between progressive economists and progressive social change movements. The author provides some examples of successful cooperation, but suggests that these are the exception rather than the norm. The article makes five concrete suggestions for each side that would help to strengthen the relationships between them, and engage progressive economists more fully in social change campaigns.

“The Future within the Present: Seven Theses for a Robust Twenty-First-Century Socialism” by David Laibman (CUNY Graduate School), Summer 2006, 38(3): 305-318.
Abstract: To meet today’s challenges, including successful mobilization around people’s most immediate needs, a rigorous and inspiring vision of a new society — socialism — is more necessary than ever. Without creating rigid or utopian schemes, we can affirm and develop some of the most essential elements in that vision: progressive transcendence of the alienating and polarizing content of spontaneous markets; democratic coordination and planning, at all levels from central to decentral; and creative engagement with the vast potentials of modern information technology. This project must also recover and embrace all of the lessons, both positive and negative, of the twentieth-century postcapitalist experience, especially that of the USSR.

“Communicating Political Economy” by Ann Markusen (University of Minnesota), Summer 2005, 37(3): 269-280.
Abstract: Good political economic thought and research often fail to reach intended audiences or motivate the change its creators envision because of communication failure. I present a series of techniques for strengthening the writing and oral dissemination of political economic work, drawing on writing teachers from the political and creative writing spheres. The techniques include developing a powerful voice and freeing it from an internal censor, understanding one’s audience, and working with peer feedback. I argue that learning and using these techniques will not only improve the political impact of our work but strengthen the originality of our academic research and writing. Communicative writing and speaking is not enough, but it is a first crucial step in linking theory and research to effective practice.

“Speculations on the Political Economy of War and Empire” by Michael Perelman (California State University, Chico), Summer 2004, 36(3): 297-306.
Abstract: This article addresses the internal contradictions of American imperialism. By emphasizing imperial adventures and the buildup of the military without paying serious attention to the underlying economic conditions, the United States may have difficulty maintaining its military domination.

“Depths Below Depths: The Intensification, Multiplication, and Spread of Capitalism's Destructive Force from Marx's Time to Ours” by Doug Dowd (San Francisco, CA), Summer 2002, 34(3): 247-266.
Abstract: The Marxian analytical framework remains essential for the understanding of contemporary capitalism; however, given the enormous changes 4ince his time, its constitutent elements are not only in need of "updating," but the relationships between them require important shifts in emphasis. Most especially is that so regarding the relationships between "base and superstructure." It is the strength of the latter that has enabled capitalism's ongoing "triumphs," despite its ever-increasing destructiveness to humanity, society, and nature. There has always been an urgency to our work as radical economists; today's existing and threatened calamities require us to intensify and integrate our analytical and political efforts, in ways urged by Gramsci long ago.

“The ‘Reserve Army of Labor’ and the ‘Natural Rate of Unemployment’: Can Marx, Kalecki, Friedman, and Wall Street All Be Wrong?” by Robert Pollin (University of Massachusetts, Amherst), Summer 1998, 30(3): 1-13.
I was extremely honored when the URPE Steering Committee invited me to give the first annual David Gordon Memorial Lecture at the URPE summer conference. In fact, in preparing for the lecture, I began jotting down some of the reasons why I felt honored. I quickly realized that I could spend my whole allotted time going through that list. But exercising selfrestraint, I will just mention two crucial things. First, as long as I knew David Gordon—and by this I literally mean from the first day I met David as a student in his 1975 New School class on workers’ control until our last conversations—I knew him as a committed URPE worker. I want to emphasize my choice of words. David really did work for URPE. He did lots of work, including lots of the grubby work that is the foundation of any shoestring left organization. Almost all of this work he did quietly but relentlessly. He continued making contrtbutions to URPE even after he became seriously ill. Second, David made fundamental contrtbutions in opening up a new research approach in political economy. It was research that made the best possible use of existing formal empirical techniques to address questions that concerned us on the left. In doing this, David—and others who have followed his approach—have been able to challenge orthodox pretensions on their own terms...

Please visit the RRPE archive for additional information.