Gernot Koehler wrote:
I don’t think self-sufficient national Keynesianism is a good flag
to wave at
this moment in history. I believe that Samir Amin’s concept of
building a
polycentric global economy is still a good one. Throwing out
neo-liberal/neo-conservative globalism is not the same as building a
world of
self-sufficient nations.
On Keynes's foundational assumptions, "national self-sufficiency" was
a means for enabling national pursuit and actualization of more
rational values than the psychopathological values whose dominance he
took to be the defining characteristic of capitalism.
"Thus, regarded from this point of view, the policy of an increased
national self-sufficiency is to be considered not as an ideal in
itself but as directed to the creation of an environment in which
other ideals can be safely and conveniently pursued." (Collected
Writings, vol. XXI, p. 240)
"The point is that there is no prospect for the next generation of a
uniformity of economic systems throughout the world, such as existed,
broadly speaking, during the nineteenth century; that we all need to
be as free as possible of interference from economic changes
elsewhere, in order to make our own favourite experiments towards the
ideal social republic of the future; and that a deliberate movement
towards greater national self-sufficiency and economic isolation will
make our task easier, in so far as it can be accomplished without
excessive economic cost." (vol. XXI, p. 241)
As in Marx's account of "the true realm of freedom", the "good life"
constitutive of "the ideal social republic" would actualize
"happiness" in a sense derived from Aristotle's idea of "eudaimonia".
Such an actualization would require individuals with fully developed
"virtues", again in the sense of Aristotle.
Keynes's "political economy" is thus a "moral science" deriving from
an appropriation of "ancient moral philosophy" as summarized by Smith
in The Wealth of Nations.
“Wherein consisted the happiness and perfection of a man, considered
not only as an individual, but as the member of a family, of a state,
and of the great society of mankind, was the object which the ancient
moral philosophy proposed to investigate. In that philosophy the
duties of human life were treated as subservient to the happiness and
perfection of human life. ... In the ancient philosophy the perfection
of virtue was represented as necessarily productive, to the person who
possessed it, of the most perfect happiness in this life.”
<http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN20.html#V.1.70>
Actualization of the good life in this sense was the "end" of human
history. Bringing tit about - "the profound moral and social problems
of how to organise material abundance to yield up the fruits of a good
life" - was the ultimate "real problem", the ultimate "heroic task",
of the future.
“The real problems of the future are first the maintenance of peace,
of international co-operation and amity, and beyond that the profound
moral and social problems of how to organise material abundance to
yield up the fruits of a good life. These are the heroic tasks of the
future.” (vol. XXVII 260-1)
Inn relation to a true conception of this good life, "economic"
interests were largely instrumental to, derived from, the "non-
economic interests" constitutive of such a life, i.e. of the ends in
themselves activities that define a good life in this sense.
"Up to a point individual saving can allow an advantageous way of
postponing consumption. But beyond that point it is for the community
as a whole both an absurdity and a disaster. The natural evolution
should be towards a decent level of consumption for every one; and,
when that is high enough, towards the occupation of our energies in
the non-economic interests of our lives. Thus we need to be slowly
reconstructing our social system with these ends in view." (vol. XXI,
p. 393)
"But, chiefly, do not let us overestimate the importance of the
economic problem, or sacrifice to its supposed necessities other
matters of greater and more permanent significance. It should be a
matter for specialists - like dentistry. If economists could manage
to get themselves thought of as a humble, competent people, on a level
with dentists, that would be splendid!" (vol. IX, p. 332)
These ideas also underpin his advocacy (in "National Self-Sufficiency"
and elsewhere) of value criteria other than a psychopathological
obsession with the "financial results" as the basis for determining
appropriate objects for public expenditure.
Ted
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
