Apologies for the terrible subject-line, but I am curious about reactions to this critique of Marx's crisis theory by Bad DeLong:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/05/marxs-half-baked-crisis-theory-and-his-theories-of-surplus-value-chapter-17.html -------------------------------snip What I do not understand is Marx's rejection of monetarist or Keynesian solutions. Marx says the ancient and feudal modes of production did not have crises. Why not? Because they used their surplus for crusade or war or display or elite consumption and not for accumulation, hence the surplus was recycled into demand for labor and there was never any of the interruptions of M-C-M' that we get under the capitalist mode of production when capitalists lose confidence that if they turn their M into C they will then be able to turn it back into M'. For the government to see the surplus for public betterment in a downturn would seem to be just as effective a cure for depression under the CMP as conquering Gaul is under the AMP or building a cathedral is under the FMP. I think—I am not sure, but I think—Marx's rejection of a monetarist or Keynesian cure is based in part on the fact that Marx is like Ron Paul: he believes there's something wrong about credit. The liquidity the government creates by printing money is to Marx, I think, fake liquidity that is bound to come to a bad end. The only real liquidity for Marx gold. -raghu. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
