Jim Devine wrote:
>To me this suggests the possibility of Marx-Keynes syntheses: the
>holistic analysis of the capitalist mode of production of vol. I
>left out a lot of the important details of finance and the like,
>which can be filled in using content from the Keynesian tradition
>(Minsky, etc.)
Don't forget the great, though fragmentary, stuff on finance in vol.
3 of Capital.
> Of course, the fact that Keynes wanted to save capitalism whereas
>Marx wanted to destroy it will affect how this "filling in" takes
>place. (Keynes also had a different class orientation, of course: he
>favored the elite technocrats, as part of a liberal version of
>Fabianism.)
Like I've said before, today's Marxists can use Keynes & Keynesians
the way Marx used Ricardo and other bourgeois thinkers. Just because
Keynes was an anti-Marxist counterrevolutionary doesn't mean you
can't learn a lot about how finance works by reading him.
Also, Keynes got his "monetary theory of production" out of Marx - he
even used the M-C-M' formula in his notes, though he got it from a
summary of Marx, not the man himself, whom he dismissed as "out of
date controversialising."
Doug
