At 22:01 23/10/99 +0100, Lew wrote:
> 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.
And there is no unity between them? That is undialectical. Marx knew well
enough the need under bourgeois democracy to engage in the battle for
reforms. Indeed Wages Price and Profit (which goes under a different name
in the USA) is an argument reaffirming the importance of the working class
fighting for its share of surplus value (strictly that its exploitation
should not increase).
In the Manifesto they call for the speedy nationalisation of the banks. Is
that not a reform?
>>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.
This sounds like you are using Marx as a revered text for exegesis rather
than as a guide to action.
Capital is the private ownership of the means of production. It is a
relationship. It is not sacks of gold or bundles of notes. If those sacks
of gold and bundles of notes are managed in the interests of the working
people as a whole, they are abolished as capital.
And they most certainly need technical management as long as we have a
market economy. Keynes was also interested in technical management.
It is not an ideological obscenity to discuss technical management of
finance. It is entering a crucial but mystified arena of class struggle.
Chris Burford
London
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
