c b wrote: >> Here's a Marxist political economic final exam ?for Keynesians: >> What do Keynesian ideas on abating recession have to teach the Occupy >> Wall Street, Chicago, LA, etc movement ?
me: > Nothing much, since the Occupy Wall Street movement [OWSM] is about > power relations and Keynesian economics is not. Of course, it's always > good for people to know what they're talking about (e.g., economics). CB: > That Keynesian economics is not about power relations is nice > food for thought. Would you elaborate ? Is that related to economics > dropping the "political" in "political economy" ? > > Keynesianism' subject matter is critically impacted by power relations, no ? "Keynesianism" as most people use that word refers to a technical theory about how a capitalist economy works. But it would be legitimate to equate that word with the views of J.M. Keynes (as, say, Paul Davidson does). His politics involved disdain for the masses, but he favored the industrial capitalists over the financial ones, especially the pure rentiers. > Isn't Wall Street about power relations ? I think that's why it is > brilliant for OWSM to initiate the new protest form of politicizing > the market. JMK would have accepted a lot of critiques of Wall Street, but he likely would dislike the idea that everyday people should be involved in making such critiques. >> How would inculcating those >> activists with Keynesian ideas be different from steering them to the >> Democratic Party ...? me: > It's good that people know something about what they're talking about, > but if done accurately, teaching the OWSM about Keynesian economics > wouldn't steer them toward the DP or Obama, since the latter embrace > anemic Keynesian economics at best (as Fernando notes). CB: > I see how you thought I meant that. I'm referring to the fact it > steers them to reform, not system changing, economics. Keynesianism > is social democratic which = liberal DP in the US. It's more accurate to say that social democrats and (New Deal) liberals (which is NOT the same as the DP) have _used_ Keynesian technical views of the economy. But then again, so have the GOPsters. In practice, Keynesian ideas were applied in the US starting at the onset of WW2, just as in WW1 and previous wars (though this is a matter of someone speaking prose without knowing it). (Also, Hitler and the Swedes independently applied Keynesian ideas earlier, again without knowing it.) Though his language was "supply side," Reagan was a Keynesian in practice, as was Bush#2. If JMK himself is to be dubbed a social democrat, he was at the far right end of the Fabian society. So far right that he didn't belong. He was a "liberal" in the sense that he wanted to save capitalism from itself. > Helping the OWSM know more about K economics would likely push them > _away from_ the DP because they'd realize that the DP is so weak on > this issue. If K economics is needed, standing outside the DP and > yelling for solutions is more likely to produce those policies than > joining the DP or MoveOn.org, supporting it, apologizing for it and > its politicians, etc. CB: > From my experience with Keynesianism, you give it too much credit. > Keynesianism is no more revolutionary or radical reformist than the > Democratic Party. I wasn't talking about either reform or revolution. I was talking about the application of Keynesian stimulus. A good Keynesian -- such as Krugman -- says that the Obama people should have engaged in much more stimulus and should not be falling for the "balance the budget" mania. (Neither of these involve "reformism.") The point is that the Obamanauts didn't do so. Instead, they followed the lead of Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, and finance capital. gotta go. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
