In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Marxists do not agree with Keynesians
>>on *anything*.
>
>That is surprising. Do they both not purport to be addressing material
>reality? If so it would be surprising if there is not some degree of
>overlap in their analyses.
I suppose Milton Freidman would claim to be addressing material reality
but there's still no overlap with Marx. Keynes thought capitalism could
and should be saved from its own worst excesses; and he believed he had
provided an appropriate theory for the ruling class. Marx thought
capitalism had shown itself incapable of working in the interests of the
majority and must be replaced; and he believed he had contributed an
emancipatory theory. Both theories are mutually exclusive and
antagonistic.
>Besides I thought you said
>
>>>Lenin, like most leftists, was a Keynesian in his economics, even if he
>>>predates him slightly.
As I said before: Only that he saw monetary policy as a neutral
technical device for pursing government objectives.
>I argued that a socialist state would have to ensure
>the regular devaluation of capital relative to the total productive social
>labour of the society, otherwise there would be crises. That is why
>control of finance capital is crucial now for the project of world wide
>socialism, even if we can and must compromise about industrial capital.
Not what Keynes himself would have approved of, but it follows a similar
Keynesian logic. Instead of monetary policy as a neutral technical
device for pursing government objectives, we now have *capital* as a
neutral technical device for pursuing government objectives. It's as
though Marx had never existed.
--
Lew
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
