/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2274053
yes 👍 fabulous video
one note of criticism i give however, is that they imply marx saw the "symbolic" nature of money, when marx's argument is precisely contrary to this;
<"The fact that money can, in certain functions, be replaced by mere symbols of itself, gave rise to that other mistaken notion, that it is itself a mere symbol." [capital vol. 1, ch. 2]
this is why MMT is contrary to marxism in its chartalist anthropology (which i agree with). i went to the comments of the video and was immediately hit with reactionary nonsense however (picrel). if we read david graeber's "debt" book, for example, he understands that all societies are based on credit (debt) relations, and so money, when treated as a commodity, fixes debt in matter. for example, to have £10 is to be owed £10, and so to be able to pass on debt to others by the medium of exchange. this negative worldview is much more proficient than the positive worldview of "storing" value in metal. all that gold represents thus, is debt (which is why money is the opposite of "wealth", as per smith's criticism of the mercantilists - you cant eat gold).
in the words of j.m. keynes:
<"Owe your banker £1,000 and you are at his mercy; owe him £1 million and the position is reversed."
who then, is the rich man, really?

>>2273656
Keynes was anti capitalist and without his friends spying for the Soviet Union the Cold War would have ended 30 years earlier than it did.

>>2274053
Hudson is a charlatan

>>2274535
true but he also proved why reformist socialism doesn't work. you have to have a state that represses the bourgeoisie and represents workers like a sort of dictatorship

>>2274540
>you have to have a state that represses the bourgeoisie and represents workers like a sort of dictatorship
say that again…

>>2274535
keynes was a liberal; a social democrat at most.
here is the source for your cited article:
https://mises.org/mises-wire/keynes-called-himself-socialist-he-was-right
it first cites another article, "keynes and the reds":
https://mises.org/free-market/keynes-and-reds
in which it proposes keynes' alleged support for fascism, based on the 1936 german preface for his "general theory";
<"The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire […] Although I have, after all, worked it out with a view to the conditions prevailing in the Anglo-Saxon countries where a large degree of laissez-faire still prevails, nevertheless it remains applicable to situations in which state management is more pronounced."
some defenses of these comments come from various keynesians, such as harold l. wattel,
<"What Keynes says is that his macroeconomic theory of output as a whole is more easily adapted to a totalitarian state than is classical microeconomic theory of the production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire. The distinction is an important one. Keynes is comparing the usefulness of micro and macro theory in a totalitarian state" [the policy consequences of john maynard keynes]
what we can assume then, is that keynes' macroeconomics have a larger picture in view, than microeconomic transactions. these accusations may be contraposed with mises' blatant support of fascism;
<"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." [Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition, 1927]

the indicting claim of keynes' socialism comes from his review of a book by fabian socialists beatrice and sidney webb, called "soviet communism", published in 1936. his review is as follows,
<"The result is impressive. The Russian innovators have passed, not only from the revolutionary stage, but also from the doctrinaire stage. There is little or nothing left which bears any special relation to Marx and Marxism as distinguished from other systems of socialism. They are engaged in the vast administrative task of making a completely new set of social and economic institutions work smoothly and successfully over a territory so extensive that it covers one-sixth of the land surface of the world. Methods are still changing rapidly in response to experience. The largest scale empiricism and experimentalism which has ever been attempted by disinterested administrators is in operation […] it leaves me with a strong desire and hope that we in this country may discover how to combine an unlimited readiness to experiment with changes in political and economic methods and institutions, whilst preserving traditionalism and a sort of careful conservatism, thrifty of everything which has human experience behind it, in every branch of feeling and of action.”
here, keynes praises the USSR precisely for its movement away from marxism, and toward the "empirical" task of administration. keynes is divorcing economics from politics, noting the objective progress the USSR has experienced, in spite of its doctrines. this is only a scientific consideration then.

concerning the article cited in your meme, we can begin. the article first cites close friends of keynes, declaring him a liberal:
<"Keynes was a lifelong liberal [.] He was not a socialist" - [robert skidelsky]
<"He was a classical liberal in his politics, being as attached to individual freedom as the most ardent libertarian, who throughout his life repudiated socialism" - [roger backhouse and bradley bateman]
this seems like true enough opinions, but the article continues,
>Keynes was highly enthusiastic about socialism in Russia from the very beginning. He celebrated the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 […] Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks took power on November 7, 1917. Keynes happily announced, “The only course open to me is to be buoyantly bolshevik.”
keynes even spoke at the soviet politburo in 1925, which was attended by trotsky,
<"Even the more progressive economist, Mr. Keynes told us only the other day that the salvaging of the English economy lies in Malthusianism! For England, too, the road of overcoming the contradictions between city and country leads through socialism.”
there is clear disapproval.
keynes once more appeals to the "ideal" nature of the USSR beneath its "russian" and "jewish" "beastliness",
<"perhaps, it is the fruit of some beastliness in the Russian nature—or in the Russian and Jewish natures when, as now, they are allied together […] beneath the cruelty and stupidity of New Russia some speck of the ideal may lie hid" [november 11, 1925, the new republic magazine]
https://newrepublic.com/article/87511/communism-soviet-russia-religion
here, keynes is incredibly weary, yet optimistic about the soviet "experiment".

the rest of the article is incidental connections which keynes had to socialists of different sorts. an interesting anecdote concerns bretton woods;
<"In July 1944 Keynes went to the Bretton Woods Conference to design the postwar world monetary system. His American counterpart was the US Treasury official Harry Dexter White. Keynes and White are the two individuals most responsible for the postwar monetary system that emerged. Today it is well known that White was a Soviet spy. And while collaborating with White in 1944 at Bretton Woods, Keynes was vice-president of the SCR. This means that the postwar monetary system was designed by two men with connections to the socialist government of the USSR. Of course, the Keynes-White monetary system devolved into the current world monetary system.
this all seems quite clear, but let us see what keynes spoke of socialism directly:
<"I criticise doctrinaire State Socialism […] because it misses the significance of what is actually happening; because it is, in fact, little better than a dusty survival of a plan to meet the problems of fifty years ago, based on a misunderstanding of what some one said a hundredyears ago. Nineteenth-century State Socialism sprang from Bentham, free competition etc., and is on some respects a clearer, in some respects a more muddled, version of just the same philosophy as underlies nineteenth-century individualism. Both equally laid all their stress on freedom, the one negatively to avoid limitations on existing freedom, the other positively to destroy natural or acquired monopolies. They are different reactions to the same intellectual atmosphere. […] We must aim at separating those services which are technically social from those which are technically individual. […] The important thing for Government is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at all." [the end of laissez-faire, 1926]
keynes sounds like a typical social democrat, not a socialist, as such. further,
<"the actual alternative to Marx's communism […] The abuses of this epoch in the realms of Government are Fascism on the one side and Bolshevism on the other. Socialism offers no middle course […] I suggest, nevertheless, that the true destiny of New Liberalism is to seek their solution." [am i a liberal?, 1925]
here, keynes criticises fascism, bolshevism and socialism, together. he instead proposes "new (neo) liberalism". he continues,
<"The Labour Party contains three elements. There are the TradeUnionists, once the oppressed, now the tyrants, whose selfish and sectional pretensions need to be bravely opposed. There are the advocates of the methods of violence and sudden change, by an abuse of language called Communists,who are committed by their creed to produce evil that good may come [.] There are the Socialists, who believe that the economic foundations of modern society are evil, yet might be good.
The company and conversation of this third element, whom I have called Socialists, many Liberals to-day would not find uncongenial. But we cannot march with them until we know along what path, and towards what goal, they mean to move. I do not believe that their historic creed of State Socialism, and its newer gloss of Guild Socialism, now interest them much more than they interest us. These doctrines no longer inspire anyone. […] But the progressive Liberal has this great advantage. He can work out his policies without having to do lip-service to Trade-Unionist tyrannies, to the beauties of the class war, or to doctrinaire State Socialism - in none of which he believes." [liberalism and labour, 1926]
keynes clearly shows contempt for political socialism, in any marxist variant, and sees himself as a "progressive liberal".
of course, we have keynes' thoughts on marx and his work,
<"Gesell's main book is written in cool, scientific language […] The purpose of the book as a whole may be described as the establishment of an anti-Marxian socialism, a reaction against laissez-faire built on theoretical foundations totally unlike those of Marx in being based on a repudiation instead of on an acceptance of the classical hypotheses, and on an unfettering of competition instead of its abolition. I believe that the future will learn more from the spirit of Gesell than from that of Marx. The preface to The Natural Economic Order will indicate to the reader, if he will refer to it, the moral quality of Gesell. The answer to Marxism is, I think, to be found along the lines of this preface." [keynes' general theory, 1936]
if we look at gesell's work, "the natural economic order", we may read this,
<"How is it that Marx and his theory are spoken of by every newspaper in the world? […] Marx can never damage capital." [part i, distribution]
gesell instead prefers proudhon's "market socialism" of cooperative ownership, since he sees its practical validity. i have also advocated for mutualism in this thread.
returning to keynes, he also discredits marx's "das kapital":
<"My feelings about Das Kapital are the same as my feelings about the Koran. I know that it is historically important and I know that many people, not all of whom are idiots, find it a sort of Rock of Ages and containing inspiration. Yet when I look into it, it is to me inexplicable that it can have this effect. Its dreary, out-of-date, academic controversialising seems so extraordinarily unsuitable as material for the purpose." [letter to george bernard shaw, 2 december 1934]"
from all this, we can conclude that keynes, as per his self-identification, was a liberal, even if also a statist. he never praised socialism as such, but only what it sought represent in contradistinction to the free market. at best, you could call him a "social democrat" or "progressive". his central concern was monetary reform, not revolutionising property relations. he wanted to fix markets, not abolish them.

>>2274583
If Keynes lived until the 1980s he would radicalize fast. His era and century was one in which social democrats were experimenting with state policy for the first time ever so there was some material cause for optimism. Witnessing the neoliberal counter attack would have made it irrefutably clear to him that the communists were correct and there is no way to solidify such gains without a violent revolution. This is evidenced by his supporters like Joan Robinson who saw this happen and turned to things like Maoism and Juche as a direct response.

>>2274588
>If Keynes lived until the 1980s he would radicalize fast.
yes i agree. thats why i conclude my original post with a rhetorical question, in light of keynes' failed optimism: >>2273656
>if he could see our future, would he have changed his mind(?)

>Witnessing the neoliberal counter attack would have made it irrefutably clear to him that the communists were correct
this is incredibly presumptuous. just because some right wing intellectuals were incorrect doesnt vindicate the failed soviet experiment.

>>2274598
>just because some right wing intellectuals were incorrect doesnt vindicate the failed soviet experiment
It does. Many western countries are already pushing to re-legalize child labor and some like America already have. We're witnessing a massive degradation in every possible sphere from healthcare to education to worker rights to health and food safety standards. Pretty soon we'll be right back to the 18th and 19th centuries.

>>2274604
how could the soviet union have been the alternative if it collapsed from its own internal contradictions?

>>2274588
>His era and century was one in which social democrats were experimenting with state policy for the first time ever so there was some material cause for optimism.
Wrong but that's a hilarious way to put it. Bourgeois ideologist Keynes operated in the epoch of most aggravated crises of latest stage of capitalism (WW1 and 2.) Keynes was perhaps the monopolist bourgeoisie's most faithful lackey. Keynes is utterly imperialist and bourgeois. Keynes Thought is the rationale of all capitalist States.
>Witnessing the neoliberal counter attack would have made it irrefutably clear to him that the communists were correct and there is no way to solidify such gains without a violent revolution.
I cannot fathom thinking one of imperialism's greatest thinkers (who blamed the great depression on account of not lowering wages enough) is a socialist. Read what proletarian political economy textbook say about Keynes.

In the period of the general crisis of capitalism, when the market problem has assumed unprecedented acuteness, economic crises have become both more frequent and more profound, and permanent mass unemployment is a regular feature of life, sundry theories have appeared which suggest that it is possible to secure “full employment” and to eliminate anarchy of production and crises while preserving the capitalist system. The theory of the British economist J.M. KEYNES (1883-1946) which he set forth in his book A General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) became widespread among bourgeois economists.
Concealing the true causes of permanent mass unemployment and crises under capitalism, Keynes tries to show that these “flaws” of bourgeois society arise not from the nature of capitalism but from the psychology of individuals. According to Keynes, unemployment results from insufficient demand for articles of personal and productive use. The inadequacy of consumer demand is caused by the inherent tendency which people have to save part of their income, and the inadequacy of demand for articles of productive use is due to the capitalists’ loss of interest in investing their capital in the various branches of the economy because of the general fall in the “profitability of capital”. In order to increase employment, Keynes declares, it is necessary to increase the investment of capital, and to this end the State must, on the one hand, ensure a growth in the profitability of capital by reducing the real wages of the workers through inflation and reduction of the bank rate, and, on the other hand, carry out large-scale capital investment at public expense. The extension of consumer demand, according to Keynes, may come from a further growth in the parasitic consumption and extravagance of the ruling classes and an increase in expenditure for war purposes and other unproductive outlays by the State.
Keynes’ theory is unsound. The inadequacy of consumer demand is due not to any mythical “inclination of people to save” but to the impoverishment of the working people. The measures proposed by Keynes allegedly in the interests of securing full employment — inflation, increase in unproductive, expenditure on preparing and carrying on wars — lead in reality to a further reduction in the standard of living of the working people, to shrinkage of the market and increase in unemployment. The theory of Keynes in one variety or another is widely made use of nowadays by bourgeois economists and also by right-wing Socialists in a number of capitalist countries.

>>2274610
>who blamed the great depression on account of not lowering wages enough
stopped reading there
keynes supported trade unions going on strike during the great depression
he did not support a reduction in wages of workers during the depression he supported the exact opposite
you know nothing but smear him anyways so I will not participate in a further discussion
as for imperialism he proposed post-WW2 monetary structure would have afforded far more leeway to decolonizing and newly independent states. the IMF was pushed by White and the Americans coercing him, although the IMF has attempted to revise their own history to mislead people.

>>2274606
The Soviet defeat was a psychological one not an economic one. This is why I do not agree with reductionist materialist narratives for every event. Objectively speaking the Soviet Union even despite "stagnation" was operating fine and could have continued operating for another 5 centuries in the exact same way. There was no existential economic pressure. That came only after Gorbachev began to deliberately sabotage and wreck the system in order to generate an artificial wave of support for capitalism. The videos of empty markets in the 90s that westoids cite only happened after Gorbachev took power and pushed through his "restructuring".

The party members eventually became tired of living under a constant state of emergency and conflict and believed that by junking the Soviet ideology and switching to capitalism they would be welcomed by the West and become a "normal" country that could resolve disputes in a much friendlier/less costly way. They did not understand that the Soviet ideology rather than being a constant source of insecurity was in fact their greatest shield against Western imperialism and they bought into the lie that all the West wanted was for them to switch systems. This is why their inheritors and successors like Putin constantly complain about Western malfeasance - as far as they're concerned, they did everything the West asked for and are still being threatened and browbeaten. Eventually Russia will switch back. There is a constant growing wave of support for socialism from the youth. The newer generations are sick of capitalism and Russia will once again lead the vanguard.

>>2274614
>The Soviet defeat was a psychological one not an economic one.
or just a cynical, political fleecing? the piracy of russia after the USSR points to the coup d'etat which took place. this is the materialist analysis. the leadership was corrupt and chose to line their own pockets over the benefit of the people.
>putin
he is one of the criminals to blame.
>>2274610
>[keynes] blamed the great depression on account of not lowering wages enough
he actually says otherwise:
<"Moreover, the contention that the unemployment which characterises a depression is due to a refusal by labour to accept a reduction of money-wages is not clearly supported by the facts. It is not very plausible to assert that unemployment in the United States in 1932 was due either to labour obstinately refusing to accept a reduction of money-wages or to its obstinately demanding a real wage beyond what the productivity of the economic machine was capable of furnishing." [general theory, chapter 2]
>these “flaws” of bourgeois society arise not from the nature of capitalism but from the psychology of individuals.
keynes is a "macroeconomist", so is not particularly concerned with the psychology of individuals. keynes also appropriates marx's theories of crisis and adapts them into "boom-bust" cycles, which proceed as a natural consequence of free markets, or what keynes terms "the marginal efficiency of capital", which expires itself.
>aggregate loss in demand causes unemployment
obviously. this is why keynes wished to stimulate demand by liquidity;
<"The quantity of money determines the supply of liquid resources, and hence the rate of interest, and in conjunction with other factors [.] the inducement to invest, which in turn fixes the equilibrium level of incomes, output and employment and [.] the price-level as a whole through the influences of supply and demand thus established." [general theory, french preface]
basically: more money = more demand
>unproductive excess
well, keynes wanted a reduction in the working day, along with full employment. he wanted efficiency, not anarchy:
<"We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter—to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us! [economic possibilities for our grandchildren, 1930]"
what youre citing seems like hit-piece more than a solid refutation. also, where's the sauce for all this?

>>2274535
ok retard

>>2274634
here's the source for the quote, which solidifies keynes' anticommunism:
<"How can I accept a doctrine which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete economic textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and the intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality in life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the Red bookshops? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values. [a short view of russia, 1925]"

>>2274612
>keynes supported trade unions going on strike during the great depression he did not support a reduction in wages of workers during the depression he supported the exact opposite
wrong
>you know nothing but smear him anyways so I will not participate in a further discussion as for imperialism he proposed post-WW2 monetary structure would have afforded far more leeway to decolonizing and newly independent states. the IMF was pushed by White and the Americans coercing him, although the IMF has attempted to revise their own history to mislead people.
you say we know nothing then inform us that keynes designed the imperialist system that always fails. the keynesian system is bourgeois. Proletarian dictatorship has no keynesians.
>>2274623
>he actually says otherwise:<"Moreover, the contention that the unemployment which characterises a depression is due to a refusal by labour to accept a reduction of money-wages is not clearly supported by the facts. It is not very plausible to assert that unemployment in the United States in 1932 was due either to labour obstinately refusing to accept a reduction of money-wages or to its obstinately demanding a real wage beyond what the productivity of the economic machine was capable of furnishing." [general theory, chapter 2]
You fail to grasp the essence of keynesian economics. You equate money-wage with real wage. Keynes actually says this about reducing real wage to achieve capitalist notion of "full employment":
>Now ordinary experience tells us, beyond doubt, that a situation where labour stipulates (within limits) for a money-wage rather than a real wage, so far from being a mere possibility, is the normal case. Whilst workers will usually resist a reduction of money-wages, it is not their practice to withdraw their labour whenever there is a rise in the price of wage-goods. It is sometimes said that it would be illogical for labour to resist a reduction of money-wages but not to resist a reduction of real wages. For reasons given below (section III), this might not be so illogical as it appears at first; and, as we shall see later, fortunately so. But, whether logical or illogical, experience shows that this is how labour in fact behaves.
>keynes is a "macroeconomist", so is not particularly concerned with the psychology of individuals.
Wrong. He devotes chapters of his seminal work to the psychology of consumption. See picrel
>keynes also appropriates marx's theories of crisis and adapts them into "boom-bust" cycles, which proceed as a natural consequence of free markets, or what keynes terms "the marginal efficiency of capital", which expires itself.
Wrong. Keynes presents bourgeois theories of crisis.
>keynes wanted full employment. he wanted efficiency, not anarchy
Wrong. Keynes was bourgeois economist who wrote these delusions during great depression. What you say keynes wants is exactly what any bourgeois wants during the great depression.

>>2274664
"wrong"
proceeds to say the same thing but in an argumentative tone

>>2274664
Wrong

>>2274487
You say Cockshott says Marx assumes profit rates equalize, the reply you get is that C does not say that about M assuming it in his rhetoric, but that the simple formal examples by Marx have equal profit rates and these models mislead. You now quote at length statements showing you wrong, but you don't seem to recognize it.

>>2274495
>taking Ricardo for Marx
He merely says that Ricardo's presented examples have equal profit rates in common with the presented examples by Marx.
>he agrees with the critique that labor is arbitrary and it could just as easily be calories.
Cockshott is known for claiming that labor time is different, that labor time gives better price correlations than energy inputs, and that labor-time calculation should be used widely in a socialist economy.

>>2274664
>You equate money-wage with real wage.
no i dont. included in the quote is the implied difference:
<"It is not very plausible to assert that unemployment in the United States in 1932 was due either to labour obstinately refusing to accept a reduction of money-wages or to its obstinately demanding a real wage beyond what the productivity of the economic machine was capable of furnishing. [general theory, chapter 2]"
yet neither are deemed as responsible for unemployment to keynes.
>Keynes actually says this about reducing real wage to achieve capitalist notion of "full employment"… "It is sometimes said that it would be illogical for labour to resist a reduction of money-wages but not to resist a reduction of real wages. For reasons given below (section III), this might not be so illogical as it appears at first; and, as we shall see later, fortunately so"
well, lets give the context:
<"When money-wages are rising, that is to say, it will be found that real wages are falling; and when money-wages are falling, real wages are rising. This is because, in the short period, falling money-wages and rising real wages are each, for independent reasons, likely to accompany decreasing employment; labour being readier to accept wage-cuts when employment is falling off, yet real wages inevitably rising in the same circumstances on account of the increasing marginal return to a given capital equipment when output is diminished." [general theory, ch. 2, sec. 2]
here then, real wages are tied to the marginal utility of labour, which, like marginal efficiency of capital investment, diminishes its returns over time (tracked by declining aggregate demand). fuller employment then means a greater diminishment of returns, or a "marginal disutility of labour". we might say in other terms, that with high capital investment, wages increase, and then stagnate; this is part of the business cycle's general movement. on the specific issue of lowering real wages while preserving money-wages, he says:
<"it is fortunate that the workers, though unconsciously, are instinctively more reasonable economists than the classical school, inasmuch as they resist reductions of money-wages, which are seldom or never of an all-round character, even though the existing real equivalent of these wages exceeds the marginal disutility of the existing employment; whereas they do not resist reductions of real wages, which are associated with increases in aggregate employment and leave relative money-wages unchanged [general theory, chapter 2, section 3]"
and concludes this in section 5,
<"in general, an increase in employment can only occur to the accompaniment of a decline in the rate of real wages"
this only counts as a logistical fact. and he further qualifies it with an earlier notion,
<"is not necessarily due to labour's demanding a larger quantity of wage-goods; and a willingness on the part of labour to accept lower money-wages is not necessarily a remedy for unemployment"
so keynes is not saying that lowering real wages raises employment, but the reverse, that raising employment lowers real wages. we see high unemployment in the poorest countries, with no means of bargaining power - so the market does not solve these issues itself.
>He devotes chapters of his seminal work to the psychology of consumption. See picrel [chapter 9 and 12]
in chapter 9 he begins with this,
<"Since, however, the analysis of these factors raises no point of novelty, it may be sufficient if we give a catalogue of the more important, without enlarging on them at any length."
he is not dedicating much time to it. he identifies 8 subjective factors, which he then concludes the chapter revoking in their importance:
<"Thus, after all, the actual rates of aggregate saving and spending do not depend on Precaution, Foresight, Calculation, Improvement, Independence, Enterprise, Pride or Avarice. Virtue and vice play no part. It all depends on how far the rate of interest is favourable to investment, after taking account of the marginal efficiency of capital. [general theory, ch. 9, sec. 2]"
chapter 12 is a digression, as he states,
<"There is, however, not much to be said about the state of confidence a priori. Our conclusions must mainly depend upon the actual observation of markets and business psychology. This is the reason why the ensuing digression is on a different level of abstraction from most of this book." [general theory, ch. 12, sec. 2]
>Keynes presents bourgeois theories of crisis.
marx's crisis theory of "overproduction" is converted into theories of underconsumption by keynes, formulated as a decline in aggregate demand. its the same difference, in effect, which is why both attribute unemployment to this cause. labour loses its purchase because it is outcompeted by capital.
>Keynes was bourgeois economist who wrote these delusions during great depression
what delusions? you want to hate keynes simply because he wasnt a communist. you are the worst type of defender of faith; dogmatic and ignorant. you can rationally, or irrationally disagree with keynes.

>>2274701
Keynes teaches us that strikes, unemployment, and crises are "inefficient" and cutting money-wages is wrong. Keynes concludes that capitalists are better off cutting real wages instead of money-wages to avoid strikes, using that money to achieve "full-employment."
>>2274733
The delusions about british 15 hour work week in his lifetime. Rational proletarians recognize keynesian doctrine as late stage capitalist cope and categorically repudiate keynesian doctrine on every ontological, epistomological, and praxiological level.

>>2275226
Do you have a quote of Keynes actually recommending that.

>>2275226
>The delusions about british 15 hour work week in his lifetime.
it was actually intended for his "granchildren's" lifetime. we can see this from the very title of the article;
<"economic possibilities for our grandchildren" [1930]
>Rational proletarians recognize keynesian doctrine as late stage capitalist cope
yet, this "cope" has objectively extended the lifetime of "late capitalism". but elsewise, in the words of j.m. keynes,
<"in the long run, we are all dead" [tract on monetary reform, 1923]
keynes did not expect the current state of affairs to last forever.
>>2275396
where it concerns the facts of the matter i have already addressed this: >>2274733
<"in general, an increase in employment can only occur to the accompaniment of a decline in the rate of real wages [general theory, chapter 2, section 5]"
this is not keynes' unique remark however, but his submission to a classical postulation concerning labour. it therefore only appears as a logistical fact, in the same manner with which smith and ricardo see the inherent antagonism between wages and profits. at the same time however, according from the LTV, more wealth is able to be produced for less value over time, so fuller employment may simultaneously bring fuller wealth. more labour = cheaper goods.
the other anon's remarks seem to have him assuming that unemployment is a virtue. who benefits from unemployment?

>>2190402
Got Doc Cock to answer this charge directly:

>>2275862
an increase in employment means a decrease in the reserve army of labor means an increase in the bargaining power of workers means a decrease in the ability for capitalists to bring in scabs and crush strikes… so why does keynes think that an increase in employment is accompanied by a decline in real wages?

Archived the Paul Cockshott AMA
https://archive.is/53xsw
The link should be working in a few minutes

>>2276605
hahaha wow

>>2276605
just double checked the prices are real

>>2276579
keynes understands that what allows real wages to be higher for employed workers, relative to the unemployed is the marginal productivity/utility of labour (or the rate of diminishing returns on something). when you increase the quantity of labour without meaningful division, you lower its quality and so lower its aggregate demand (think of how at a certain level of growth, a company suddenly becomes unprofitable). in marxist terms, labour-power is conserved for the most skilled labourers (based on distribution of wages), so increasing the workforce debases its standard unit to a lower degree (lowers wages by proportion). think for example how global markets create "brain drains" on localities. the unskilled have the least demand. practically speaking, most people are unskilled (including myself), so it becomes burdensome for the skilled to train up the population. now, this fall in real wages only concerns an average, so its not as if everyone magically becomes poorer because more people work; its just that there is less to go around individually, but collectively, there would be more wealth if more people worked; thats just intuitive. thats why the only options we have as a society is, as per the ricardian adage, to make everyone "equally poor", or malthusianism (depopulation).
>bargaining
well, keynes praises bargaining for money-wages, but the price and value of labour are different variables. you cant print off money and suddenly create value, for example.

>>2276579
>>2277228
here is another description of marginal productivity.
there is an absolute limit to productive capability which then limits the capacity of real wages, per worker.
<"[the first classical postulation] - The wage is equal to the marginal product of labour […] In emphasising our point of departure from the classical system, we must not overlook an important point of agreement. For we shall maintain the first postulate as heretofore […] the marginal product in the wage-good industries (which governs real wages) necessarily diminishes as employment is increased. So long, indeed, as this proposition holds, any means of increasing employment must lead at the same time to a diminution of the marginal product and hence of the rate of wages measured in terms of this product." [general theory, chapter 2, section 1-5]
a good example might be a group project in school. one person does the work while rest do nothing. the aims to productivity are then limited by overemployment. this is why its preferable to divide labour into different tasks, as smith saw. marx also sees how the division of labour increases productivity, but then curiously decries its "alienating" qualities. the facts of the matter is that we are a species which specialises. nerds and jocks will exist together.

>>2279800
yes. money can be said to be a token representing a national economy's debt. debt is created by governments by "deficit spending", or issuing more money than it receives in revenues (taxes). the increase of national debt has a positive trend with inflation therefore, which, in relative terms, allows economies to grow. the opposite of inflation is deflation, or recession, which if unchecked, leads to depression, or a severe lack of activity in an economy. the great depression for example came about from the crisis of banks being fleeced of their fractional reserves of gold. this meant that there was no gold to issue credit on, so the money supply was limited, leading to a lack of activity. keynes sought stimulation as a remedy, in line with roosevelt's "new deal".

when foreign countries hold "debt" then, it just means that they possess a certain amount of currency of that nation, not that they "owe" the nation anything (in fact, the relationship is often reversed, as we might read from picrel). if all national debt was cleared (as we see in your video), there would be no money left (public money counts as a "liable" asset, which is why it is taxed). this is why conservatives who try to "balance the budget" by setting high interest rates on central banks limit public spending (the rate for the federal reserve and bank of england is around 4.25%). people might think its reasonable to eliminate debt, but in this case, it is simply class warfare. the common aim of MMT-inclined thinkers then is in pursuing the abolishment of interest rates (by nationalising banking), to liberate spending. this is part of the post-keynesian strategy toward full employment.

>>2279853
You think nationalizing banks captures money but really it is money that captures you! Money isn't value, value is in production. Want to solve employment? Nationalize production.

>>2279894
>Money isn't value
according to marx, money as the "absolute commodity" embraces the entire world of commodities to become the universal form of value:
<"These objects, gold and silver, just as they come out of the bowels of the earth, are forthwith the direct incarnation of all human labour. Hence the magic of money." [capital vol. 1, chapter 2]
>Want to solve employment? Nationalize production.
sure, im just explaining the keynesian position.

according to engels this text (1845):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htm
>The southern facile character of the Irishman, his crudity, which places him but little above the savage, his contempt for all humane enjoyments, in which his very crudeness makes him incapable of sharing, his filth and poverty, all favour drunkenness. The temptation is great, he cannot resist it, and so when he has money he gets rid of it down his throat. What else should he do? How can society blame him when it places him in a position in which he almost of necessity becomes a drunkard; when it leaves him to himself, to his savagery? With such a competitor the English working-man has to struggle, with a competitor upon the lowest plane possible in a civilised country, who for this very reason requires less wages than any other. Nothing else is therefore possible than that, as Carlyle says, the wages of English working-man should be forced down further and further in every branch in which the Irish compete with him. And these branches are many. All such as demand little or no skill are open to the Irish. For work which requires long training or regular, pertinacious application, the dissolute, unsteady, drunken Irishman is on too low a plane.
he is saying that immigration lowers the wages of a national working class by a general decline of the standards of living.
marx also wrote this in a letter (1870):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm
>Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself … But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class. And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life.
offering similar sentiments. to marx and engels then, there seems to be a ruling class interest in immigration, which leads to antagonisms in the working class. are there any contrary theoretical notions to this, or is this the consensus?

here is an interesting excerpt from keynes' "tract on monetary reform", in a section subtitled "inflation as a form of taxation":
<"A government can live for a long time [.] by printing paper money […] Let us suppose that there are in circulation 9,000,000 currency notes, and that they have altogether a value equivalent to 36,000,000 gold dollars. Suppose that the Government prints a further 3,000,000 notes, so that the amount of currency is now 12,000,000 [.] In the first state of affairs, therefore, each note = $4, and in the second state of affairs each note = $3. Consequently the 9,000,000 notes originally held by the public are now worth $27,000,000 instead of $36,000,000 [.] Thus by the process of printing the additional notes the Government has transferred from the public to itself an amount of resources equal to $9,000,000, just as successfully as if it had raised this sum in taxation. On whom has the tax fallen? Clearly on the holders of the original 9,000,000 notes, whose notes are now worth 25 per cent less than they were before [.] No wonder its superficial advantages have attracted Ministers of Finance [.] What is there to prevent the Government from repeating this process over and over again?" [tract on monetary reform, chapter 2, section 1]
this is congruous to my earlier comments that inflation largely represents the lowering of the value of the wage, where capitalist losses are subsidised from this redistribution.

>>2289480
>this is congruous to my earlier comments that inflation largely represents the lowering of the value of the wage
ok
>where capitalist losses are subsidised from this redistribution.
how does it say that?
<On whom has the tax fallen? Clearly on the holders of the original 9,000,000 notes
wouldn't the holders be capitalists? isn't this just MMT?

>>2289957
>how does it say that?
are you aware that large capitalist firms are subsidised from their losses by bailouts from the state? at the same rate that capital is supported, wages are lowered in their purchasing power. this means that wages are redistributed as profits. a simple deduction.
>wouldn't the holders be capitalists?
in keynes' example, the currency holders are the general population.
>isn't this just MMT?
MMT is more of an anthropological and historical theory as to the nature of money, which aligns with the keynesian postulation of "chartalism", or the notion that a central authority legitimises the medium of exchange by special powers. this is different from a commodity theory of money, which is part of the classical hypothesis, such as in smith or marx. the theory of money's value then comes from the view that it must create demand by limiting its supply through taxation. this is a "negative" view of money (which in fiat is equally regarded as "debt"). as per the keynesian truism; "If you owe your bank a hundred pounds, you have a problem. But if you owe a million, it has." MMT theorists may then have political application of these ideas, but thats a separate issue.

>>2290197
>are you aware that large capitalist firms are subsidised from their losses by bailouts from the state?
well yeah but where does the text say that? was it also like that in keynes' time?
>MMT is more of an anthropological and historical theory as to the nature of money
>this is a "negative" view of money
so then MMT is keynesian?

>>2290215
>so then MMT is keynesian?
yes totally because keynesians print money and give it to capitalist which is MMT.

>>2290218
I thought the point of MMT was to print money to tax capitalists indirectly. That inflation devalues savings which is largely owned by capitalists, and then the printed money can be allocated by the state towards the public. Isn't that what Keynes claimed to advocate?

>>2290225
>I thought the point of MMT was to print money to tax capitalists indirectly.
Wrong. The point of Keynesianism and MMT is to print money, give it to capitalists, and drive down real wages by inflation so they can hire more labor to offset the crises of capital.
>That inflation devalues savings which is largely owned by capitalists
Devaluing savings means making investment possible by driving down real wages. The inflation compels the worker to work for lower real wages which makes investment possible or more profitable.
>the printed money can be allocated by the state towards the public.
The printed money goes to capitalists, not the public.

>>2290233
Well yes in practice that does seem to be the case.

>well yeah but where does the text say that?
it says that inflation acts as taxation - which today, is used to fund capitalists.
>so then MMT is keynesian?
its "post-keynesian", originating in the thought of people like hymen minsky and warren moseler - who has reported that he has never read adam smith or karl marx. he's not an economist, but a financial adviser. MMT has more academic grounding in economic historians like l. randall wray, and some political thinkers of MMT include michael hudson and david graeber.
>was it also like that in keynes' time?
well keynes directly cites the sinister attitude of the state keeping itself alive.
>>2290225
>inflation devalues savings which is largely owned by capitalists
only cash savings. capital assets rise in value during inflation.
>then the printed money can be allocated by the state towards the public. Isn't that what Keynes claimed to advocate?
well, it all depends. keynes approaches the classical theory of say's law ("supply creates its own demand"), and reverses this to be keynes' law of effective demand ("demand creates its own supply"). the strategy for keynes is in raising aggregate demand (AD) in the economy, thus. this is the mechanism which enables prosperity to keynes. AD may be raised in diverting savings into investment, as he writes here:
<"If we are to continue to draw the voluntary savings of the community into “investments,” we must make it a prime object of deliberate State policy that the standard of value, in terms of which they are expressed, should be kept stable; adjusting in other ways (calculated to touch all forms of wealth equally and not concentrated on the relatively helpless “investors”) the redistribution of the national wealth, if, in course of time, the laws of inheritance and the rate of accumulation have drained too great a proportion of the income of the active classes into the spending control of the inactive." [tract on monetary reform, ch. 1, sct. 1]
saving counts as economic inactivity (this is also why investing in capital assets is the best form of "saving"). keynes is also more direct on economic equality and redistribution here:
<"The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes. The bearing of the foregoing theory on the first of these is obvious. But there are also two important respects in which it is relevant to the second. Since the end of the nineteenth century significant progress towards the removal of very great disparities of wealth and income has been achieved through the instrument of direct taxation — income tax and surtax and death duties — especially in Great Britain. Many people would wish to see this process carried much further, but they are deterred by two considerations; partly by the fear of making skilful evasions too much worth while and also of diminishing unduly the motive towards risk-taking, but mainly, I think, by the belief that the growth of capital depends upon the strength of the motive towards individual saving and that for a large proportion of this growth we are dependent on the savings of the rich out of their superfluity. Our argument does not affect the first of these considerations. But it may considerably modify our attitude towards the second. For we have seen that, up to the point where full employment prevails, the growth of capital depends not at all on a low propensity to consume but is, on the contrary, held back by it; and only in conditions of full employment is a low propensity to consume conducive to the growth of capital. Moreover, experience suggests that in existing conditions saving by institutions and through sinking funds is more than adequate, and that measures for the redistribution of incomes in a way likely to raise the propensity to consume may prove positively favourable to the growth of capital." [general theory, ch. 24, sct. 1]
keynes sees then that redistribution can only be a positive force, for both capital and labour, via circulation. this concedes to smith's own analysis, that the higher the wages, the wealthier a nation,
<"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two." [wealth of nations, ch. 11, sct. 3]
keynes also cites market anarchist silvio gesell as the theorist who supersedes marx:
<"I believe that the future will learn more from the spirit of Gesell than from that of Marx. The preface to The Natural Economic Order will indicate to the reader, if he will refer to it, the moral quality of Gesell. The answer to Marxism is, I think, to be found along the lines of this preface." [general theory, ch. 23, sct. 6]
so that gives you an impression of his thought on the matter.

>>2290306
>keynes also cites market anarchist silvio gesell

The "Market Anarchist" in question:
>In April 1919, Gesell received a call from Ernst Niekisch from the revolutionary government of Bavarian Soviet Republic to come to Munich. This offered him a seat in the so-called Socialization Commission and he was appointed shortly, on suggestion of Erich Müchsam and Gustav Landauer, as the "People's Representative for Finance" (German: Volksbeauftragte für Finanzen) situated in Munich. Gesell worked with law Professor Karl Polenske [de] from the University of Greifswald and the Swiss physician and mathematician Theophil Friedrich Christen. He wrote a law for the creation of Freigeld (Free Money), a currency system he had developed. However, his term lasted for only seven days.
>After the violent end of Soviet Republic, Gesell was arrested. There he shared a cell with the poet Gustav Gräser, whose writing on revolution he funded. After several months in prison, he was acquitted on July 1919 in a high treason trial for his self-defense speech in front of a Munich court martial.[1] He claimed that he didn't have anything to do with the political decisions of the Republic and was just trying to offer a plan to restructure the economy.[10] The legal costs of the process were paid by the state treasury. However, he, Gräser, and others was deported from Bavaria. Immediately after his discharge, Gesell and his supporters resumed their activism for his revolutionary ideas

Keynes chads stay winning. A true Keynesian always ends up working for the bolsheviks.

>>2290306
>which today, is used to fund capitalists.
Thats always been Keynes problem. He separates economics from politics, not knowing "democracy" is DotB and needing a DotP to do what he says he wants.