On the 80th anniversary of Keynes’ death, economic historian Adam Tooze channels Sweezy to signal to modern monetary theorists and other heterodox liberal economists that it's necessary to move beyond post-Keynesianism to end the persistent crises of capitalism.
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/a-bad-time-for-us-equities-keynes?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=ewjoh&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email *On the naivety of Keynes’s thinking about the state (Paul Sweezy)* Many other examples of the insularity and comparative narrowness of the Keynesian approach could be cited. But perhaps most striking of all is Keynes’ habit of treating the state as a deus ex machina to be invoked whenever his human actors, behaving according to the rules of the capitalist game, get themselves into a dilemma from which there is apparently no escape. Naturally, this Olympian interventionist resolves everything in a manner satisfactory to the author and presumably to the audience. The only trouble is—as every Marxist knows—that the state is not a god but one of the actors who has a part to play just like all the other actors. … But while it is right to recognize the great importance of Keynes, it it no less essential to recognize his shortcomings. They are for the most part the shortcomings of bourgeois thought in general: the unwillingness to view the economy as an integral part of a social whole; the inability to see the present as history, to understand that the disasters and catastrophes amidst which we live are not simply a “frightful muddle” but are the direct and inevitable product of a social system which has exhausted its creative powers, but whose beneficiaries are determined to hang on regardless of the cost. Keynes himself, of course, could never have recognized, let alone transcended, the limitations of the society and the ciass of which he was so thoroughly a part. But the same cannot be said of many of his followers. They did not grow up in the complacent atmosphere of Victorian England. They were born into a world of war, and depression, and fascism. Some, no doubt, treading in the footsteps of the master, will seek to preserve their comforting liberal illusions as long as humanly possible. Some, in all probability, will range themselves on the side of the existing order and will sell their skill as economists to the highest bidder. But still others, while retaining what is valid and sound in Keynes, will take their place in the growing ranks of those who realize that patching up the present system is not enough, that only a profound change in the structure of social relations can set the stage for a new advance in the material and cultural condi¬ tions on the human race. This last group, I think, will inevitably be attracted to Marxism as the only genuine and comprehensive science of history and society. Perhaps the clearest indication that this is so is to be found in Joan Robinson’s little book An Essay on Marxian Economics published in England early in the war. … Can it be pure accident that one of the most prominent followers of Keynes should be the author of the first honest work on Marxism ever to he written by a non-Marxist British economist? Source: Paul. M. Sweezy Obit for Keynes (1946) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#40766): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40766 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117927517/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
