Keynesian economics IS NOT LEFTIST

[RGacky3]

I always hear the distinction of Keynesian economics on the left, and Austrian school and so on on the right.

Keynesian ecnomics is intelligent Capitalism, its responsible Capitalism, its not trying to democratize the economy. Keynesian economics is more about regulation, public sector spending and so on, its not about democratic control, or worker control. It works within the framework of how to keep growth going, it leaves class systems in place and supports them.

Keynesianism is not socialist, not even close, its jut repsonsible capitalism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

So the only thing on the left is socialism?

[IcarusAngel]

First of all, I wouldn't lump Austrian economics and Keynesian economics in any category together. If neoclassical economics is Newtonian physics and Keynesian economics is Einsteinian physics, then Austrian economics is creationism. It is a useless, incoherent field of economics created by a man who did not understand logic. There are to this day fewer Austrians in economics than truthers in engineering, even on a per capita basis.

Many see Keynes as having overthrown the foundations of classical and neoclassical economics while avoiding the errors of Marxism. While his detractors accuse him of being everything from fascist, to capitalist, to socialist, etc., in reality his destruction of neoclassical economics and the continuation of his ideas in post-keynesian economics could be a starting point for a democratic socialist system independent of Marxism.

New-Keynesianism is a neoclassical synthesis of Keynes and neoclassical economics. However, the old Keynesian tradition is still kept alive by Cambridge economists, MMT, and some of their theories are very much like what you'd hear from critiques of neoliberalism from say someone like chomsky.

A good deal of their insights could be applied to libertarian socialism.

[RGacky3]

Not only Austrians, But those who support the Chicago school of thought (such as Milton freidman type people) generally will criticize Keynsian economics as being the left of modern economics, you hear it a lot from people who argue economics from a political stand point on the right, that Keynsian economics is the economics of the left, and that more free market economics, are the on right.

I absolutely agree that Keynesian economics and their analysis can be applied to socialism, just like classical economics was applied to marxism.

What I'm saying is that Keynesianism is not opposed to Capitalism or free markets, its not part of the socialist tradition. I've heard quite a few times that Keynesianism is the leftist economic model, I'm saying its not.

But sure, Keynes insights are absolutely usefull and accurate.

[Tim Finnegan]

...in reality his destruction of neoclassical economics and the continuation of his ideas in post-keynesian economics could be a starting point for a democratic socialist system independent of Marxism.
Which is presumably to say, independent of class struggle? :huh:

[Skooma Addict]

Many see Keynes as having overthrown the foundations of classical and neoclassical economics while avoiding the errors of Marxism. While his detractors accuse him of being everything from fascist, to capitalist, to socialist, etc., in reality his destruction of neoclassical economics and the continuation of his ideas in post-keynesian economics could be a starting point for a democratic socialist system independent of Marxism.

But more do not see it this way as most economists are neoclassicals. I believe each school of econ has its own advantages and disadvantages. Keynes believed in capitalism.

[NGNM85]

Keynesian economics may not be inherently Left-wing, but some Leftists are Keynesians.

[RGacky3]

Well, in a sense I'm a keynesian in the sense that consider his analysis on market inefficiencies and how capitalism works is accurate and makes sense.

But the Keynesian solutoins, are not the solutions I go for, they are not socialist solutions.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I think this is a semantics argument more than anything.

Keynsian economics represents the left wing of the mainstream political and economic establishments. Still very mainstream, the 'left' here isn't calling for abolishment of social classes but rather things like more progressive taxation, universal healthcare, spending on infrastructure projects, public union support, etc. This is counter to the right wing view which thinks that the larger concern is the value of the dollar and wishes to do a whole bunch of things that have been proven to do nothing to help the economy, like ending unemployment benefits or cutting taxes for very, very, very wealthy people.

In my opinion, the choices presented by the mainstream are the left, working primarily for people in the 95th percentile and above, and the right, working primarily for people in the 98th percentile and above.

The socialist viewpoint is, of course, wholly unrepresented.

[NGNM85]

Well, in a sense I'm a keynesian in the sense that consider his analysis on market inefficiencies and how capitalism works is accurate and makes sense.

But the Keynesian solutoins, are not the solutions I go for, they are not socialist solutions.

Most certainly not, but despite a dubious re-branding project on the part of a number of radicals, the fact remains socialists don't own 'the Left.'

[RadioRaheem84]

Why don't you guys actually read what Keynes had to say about socialism?

Or his thoughts on the working class?

There are some Left Keynesians like Joan Robinson with socialist influences but Keynesianism was originally a tool for saving capitalism and avoid socialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

One would think that leftists in here would understand that being radical conveys advocating for social change beyond the reformist position.

If Keynesian economics represents anything, it's; save capitalism by reforming it.

[cb9's_unity]

What is "the left" is entirely relative. Whats more important is that Keynesian economics are in no way socialist.

Also, to my knowledge, Keynesian economics is what has kept Americans capitalism going since the great depression. Now that it seems that it can no longer stop capitalism from entering into major economic recessions, will the capitalists abandon faith in it totally by moving far to the right? Of course to do that would represent one short term attack on the working class, but one long term step towards socialism.

[Nolan]

Why is Keynesian economics "left?" What about it earns it "left" points off the bat?

[cb9's_unity]

Why is Keynesian economics "left?" What about it earns it "left" points off the bat?

According to the bastardized conservative definition of socialism, basically anything that vaguely has to do with the government dealing with the economy or with property is socialism. Because Keynes recognized that bourgeois government have to have a central role in the economy to survive, those on the right immediately think it is socialism.

Basically Keynesianism is only associated with the left as a result of opportunistic right-wing name calling.

[RGacky3]

As thecultofabelincon said its just semantics, my point was that Keynesianism is a capitalism thoery, not a socialist one ... Thats it.

[Dean]

Why don't you guys actually read what Keynes had to say about socialism?

Or his thoughts on the working class?

There are some Left Keynesians like Joan Robinson with socialist influences but Keynesianism was originally a tool for saving capitalism and avoid socialism.

Keynes has some valuable theories and contributions. In much the same way, Marx was heavily influenced by Adam Smith in the focus on labor as the productive force in manufacture.

Its worth noting, however, that Keynesianism has been out of favor for a long time. Milton Friedman, who modified / used Keynes' theories to fit a Chicagoan theory of free-marketeerism, was largely opposed to Keynes proposals, and generally rejected state-influence, in favor of "free enterprise."


Why is Keynesian economics "left?" What about it earns it "left" points off the bat?

The transformation I mention above - specifically, Keynesianism encouraged nationalist interests, whilst the latter influences have been unanimous in their support for free-marketeerism, and therefore expansion of transient capitalist interests.

Anyone who has been paying attention will see that this is an inevitable consequence of the state-competition for capitalist investment. The lifting of restrictions on capital, in particular its movement, encourage this model of competition, and the subsequent driving down of environmental standards and labor compensation.

[RGacky3]

The transformation I mention above - specifically, Keynesianism encouraged nationalist interests, whilst the latter influences have been unanimous in their support for free-marketeerism, and therefore expansion of transient capitalist interests.


Except the goal of a Keynesian economist is a vibrant and growing Capitalist economy, not a non-profit democratic economy.


Anyone who has been paying attention will see that this is an inevitable consequence of the state-competition for capitalist investment. The lifting of restrictions on capital, in particular its movement, encourage this model of competition, and the subsequent driving down of environmental standards and labor compensation.

I depends on the industry, certain types of investments value more a large demand, for example at the end of the supply chain, a company like starbucks is gonna invest a lot more in countries with a large middle class with disposible income, the same goes with financial industries, who need depositor cash, or high education industries.

So I don't actually buy that line, for example take a look at Germany large industrial sector, a very social-democratic society.

But see thats not Keynesianism, social democracy is different from a welfare state, social democracy implies actual public control, and worker control (such as the unions being included in the board of directors, or publically owned non-profit companies).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Marx wasn't a leftist.

[NGNM85]

What is "the left" is entirely relative.

No, it isn't.


Whats more important is that Keynesian economics are in no way socialist.

I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise.

[Amphictyonis]

I think Keynes, the bastard that he was, understood Marxism and understood capitalism would have to fully develop globally before communism could take hold (an assumption on my part which may be giving him too much credit). In part I think this may be why he wanted to "civilize" the globe or spread the enlightenment values from continent to continent. It's rather elitist and has set the foundations for all manner of colonial bullshit but at the same time there can be a debate on whether or not this is good for the future prospect of global communism. Some Marxists think globalization is a good thing. I think Keynes was a socialist at heart, not the sort I would aspire to be but I think he saw human evolution as taking a long time rather than happening in a swift revolution (like the Fabians he was once a part of).

I take him to be a sort of elitist 'evolutionary' socialist rather than revolutionary socialist. Keynesian economics in and of itself isnt so much socialism but a sort of small step, in some peoples eyes, to a future socialist system. I'm not so sure if I agree with that possibility. I certainly don't agree with the actions of World Bank/IMF. I'm not sure if Keynes would have approved of the direction those institutions have taken. Anyhow the argument some Marxists make is capitalism must extent itself globally before communism can take hold and Keynes institutions have certainly achieved that (Bretton Woods conference).

[cb9's_unity]

No, it isn't.

Care to give me what the concrete definition of "the left" is?

[Tim Finnegan]

Care to give me what the concrete definition of "the left" is?
Those sitting to the left-hand of the president's chair in the Estates-General. All other uses are just a single, painfully drawn-out metaphor. ;)

[NGNM85]

Care to give me what the concrete definition of "the left" is?

The Wikipedia article is pretty decent and approximate to what you'd expect to find in a textbook;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

[cb9's_unity]

The Wikipedia article is pretty decent and approximate to what you'd expect to find in a textbook;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

In the article it says "Throughout the 19th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_19th_century), the main line dividing Left and Right in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_France) was between supporters of the Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic) and those of the Monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy)."

By this definition Keynes would be solidly within the left. In fact, a fair amount of tea party people would be on the left.

I've been slowly realizing how big an error it is to take "left" or "right" descriptions with any sort of seriousness. Its decent for loose political shorthand. But in reality different political positions can't be accurately related to each other on any sort of line or grid.

[NGNM85]

In the article it says "Throughout the 19th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_19th_century), the main line dividing Left and Right in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_France) was between supporters of the Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic) and those of the Monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy)."

That's correct, but that isn't the determinent of these labels, today., which it goes on to define pretty well.


By this definition Keynes would be solidly within the left.

The center-to middling Left.


In fact, a fair amount of tea party people would be on the left.

No, the Tea party is Right-wing by virtually every metric.


I've been slowly realizing how big an error it is to take "left" or "right" descriptions with any sort of seriousness. Its decent for loose political shorthand. But in reality different political positions can't be accurately related to each other on any sort of line or grid.

It's definitely deeply flawed, for one thing; it puts Stalin and Emma Goldman on the same end, in the same spot. The double-axis graph is popular around here, you may have seen it. There's no doubt this is a flawed device, however, again, as you said, it serves a purpose as a sort of political shorthand.

[cb9's_unity]

That's correct, but that isn't the determinent of these labels, today., which it goes on to define pretty well.

And what is that definition exactly


No, the Tea party is Right-wing by virtually every metric.

Except the original one. Because what is left and what is right is relative the metric has changed. If left and right weren't relative the Tea Party would certainly not be on the far right, like they are considered to be today.

And while I'd say the double-axis is a lot better than the straight line (and better than that god awful libertarian grid), it still isn't anything more than a fun little gimmick.

[NGNM85]

And what is that definition exactly

‘Left’ comprises a range of opinions and beliefs about economics, politics, religion, etc. Leftists tend to focus more on fairness, equality, diplomacy, plurality, it tends to be more progressive (Forward-looking) and communal. So, some sort of Keynesian economic policy would fit under the Centrist, or middling Left, but not the far Left, or ‘radical’ Left, which is Socialist. Here’s a basic illustration;

http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/files/2009/10/left-right.png


Except the original one. Because what is left and what is right is relative the metric has changed. If left and right weren't relative the Tea Party would certainly not be on the far right, like they are considered to be today.

The definition of Right and Left have been fairly static for quite a number of years, however, society has changed, and it keeps changing.


And while I'd say the double-axis is a lot better than the straight line (and better than that god awful libertarian grid), it still isn't anything more than a fun little gimmick.

It’s a (albiet imperfect) tool to facilitate communication.

[RGacky3]

I get that the left right thing is semantics, my point was is the Keynesian economics is not socialistic.

[RadioRaheem84]

‘Left’ comprises a range of opinions and beliefs about economics, politics, religion, etc. Leftists tend to focus more on fairness, equality, diplomacy, plurality, it tends to be more progressive (Forward-looking) and communal. So, some sort of Keynesian economic policy would fit under the Centrist, or middling Left, but not the far Left, or ‘radical’ Left, which is Socialist. Here’s a basic illustration;


Idealist bullshit. It has nothing to do, imo, with ridiculous ideals like "fairness and diplomacy".

Diplomacy? Are you kidding? That's what you would consider one of the definitive markers of the left?

To you the left would include Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, and Rosa Luxembourg.

But then you would relegate Lenin into the rightist camp with Pinochet or Franco.

You are so ridiculous.

[RGacky3]

To you the left would include Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, and Rosa Luxembourg.


Not really, Both of them have worked against fairness and equality.


But then you would relegate Lenin into the rightist camp with Pinochet or Franco.


Pretty much :)

[RadioRaheem84]

Keynes was not a man of the left. I remember reading some of the inane stuff he would write about when red baited by the right. He would say that he would rather die than give the economy over to the "boorish" proletariat over the creative, inventive and superior bourgeois.

His open letter to FDR praised the presidents efforts at reform and recovery. He applauded the president for taking some of his advice.

Keynes and FDR were both praised for saving capitalism. Even in their writings "reform" just meant "preserving". Reform to preserve.

What kind of leftist reforms to preserve?

[RadioRaheem84]

Not really, Both of them have worked against fairness and equality.



Pretty much :)

RGaky, I remember distinctly NGN trying to tell me that Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton were both people of the left, even if I or he did not like that.

On the Lenin issue, are you a member of RAAN?

[#FF0000]

Pretty much :)

Oh what a surprise. Rgacky is wrong about a thing.

Anyway, I think NGNM's definition was pretty good. I think, though, when someone says "Leftist", they mean "militant leftist" i.e. revolutionary socialist or something.

I don't know. It's an ugly semantic argument once you get past "Keynesian econ is Centrist".

[RadioRaheem84]

I guess I don't see the point of something being centrist really when you're dealing with the preservation of capitalism or it's destruction.

Keynesianism to me was just a way for capitalists to preserve their system. Concessions were made to the working class but otherwise no major social relations of power changed leaving the social order largely in tact.

Not to mention the need for the capitalist powers in the center of global capitalism to quash any movement toward developmentalism in the third world, leaves me thinking that Keynesianism was largely an uneven ideology too.

So giving Keynes the benefit of the doubt by calling him and his ideology "centrist" is futile. It preserved a system that was on the brink of collapse and re-structured power to be more stable than before.

Concessions to the working class does not make it centrist. The working class did not need Keynes to give them the right to unionize or higher wages. They tore it out of the claws of the higher ups.

So that is why I think it's ridiculous to think that the left and right spectrum can be defined by ideals and not economics. We would have to define what those ideals mean because different people presuppose different things about "equality and diplomacy ,etc".

[RGacky3]

On the Lenin issue, are you a member of RAAN?

No, I was'nt being serious.


Oh what a surprise. Rgacky is wrong about a thing.


That would be suprising, as I'm rarely wrong.

[NGNM85]

Idealist bullshit. It has nothing to do, imo, with ridiculous ideals like "fairness and diplomacy".


Diplomacy? Are you kidding? That's what you would consider one of the definitive markers of the left?

To you the left would include Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, and Rosa Luxembourg.

You merely advertize that you have absolutely no clue what these words mean. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are a kind of shorthand measure for classifying political ideologies. This determination is made based on the views or ideology of a given person, party, institution, etc., on a number of different issues, and tendencies. You obviously need to brush up. I’d recommend these;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

And I’ll repost the handy diagram, which should be familiar;

http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/files/2009/10/left-right.png

Admittedly, I can only post this material, I cannot make you read it, nor can I make you understand it.


But then you would relegate Lenin into the rightist camp with Pinochet or Franco.



Historically, he’s been classified on the far left, however, I consider that to be evidence of the obvious failings of this device.

[RadioRaheem84]

Lord, this is coming from the genius who uses "corporate communism" to describe the current economic system of the US. Not to mention insisting at one point that Tony Blair is a man of the left, along with others.

Apparently this was so because of their shared notions about 'democracy'. I believe Churchill was also thrown in there as an example.

Your analysis totally ignores the presuppositions of what each individual actually means when they talk about Democracy and fairness, equality, etc. Churchill had a totally different view about society and what fairness meant than someone like Rosa Luxembourg . The Democratic forerunners like Obama, Clinton and even as "left wing" as Jimmy Carter still parrot a largely pro-market, centrist at best agenda. Same with the heads of the UK Labour Party.

I don't even know how one could begin to measure left/right based on the shoddy criteria you provided.

And yet you still post wiki articles as if they are definitive.

[GPDP]

Jesus tapdancing Christ, this thread frustrates me.

Look at it this way: Keynesian economics is leftist LIBERAL economics. That is, on the spectrum of liberal ideology*, Keynesian economics is on the left, while neoclassical economics is on the right. However, it's NOT socialist economics. Socialist/Marxist/anarchist economics are on another spectrum entirely, and should not be compared to Keynesian economics. While they may indeed borrow from Keynesian theories and even advocate some of its economic recommendations, their conclusions and overall goals are completely different.

To put it in other terms, advocating for Keynesian reforms within the present capitalist system is fine in the short term, as part of a minimum program. However, on the long term, Keynesian economics have little to offer, particularly in terms of socialist economic structuring and planning. That's where socialist economic theory comes in.

*In case some of you are not familiar with my thoughts on the left and right, I think it's stupid to classify ideologies on a singular spectrum, and would rather separate them and give them their own spectrum. So in that sense, it's true that socialism does not own "the left," as there is left-wing liberalism, left-wing socialism, even left-wing fascism, etc.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Didn't Keynes refer to Marxism as an "infantile" ideology?

[NGNM85]

I don't even know how one could begin to measure left/right based on the shoddy criteria you provided.

Then read, or re-read the articles, and look at the graphic.


And yet you still post wiki articles as if they are definitive.

I am fully aware of the deficiencies of Wikipedia. However, I have read the aforementioned articles, and they are perefectly adequate, and comperable to what one would find in a textbook or an encyclopedia. Worse comes to worse; maybe ask GPDP.

[Drosophila]

The American political spectrum is a circle, not a line. The further you go to the right, the closer you get to the left.

Keynesian is far from what most would see as leftist.

[StockholmSyndrome]

"When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease"

"The day is not far off when the economic problem will take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the head will be occupied or reoccupied, by our real problems — the problems of life and of human relations, of creation and behaviour and religion."

Sounds like a leftist to me.

[Tim Finnegan]

The American political spectrum is a circle, not a line. The further you go to the right, the closer you get to the left.
Wait, what? :confused:

[T-Paine]

Wait, what? :confused:

As crazy as it may seem, the circular political spectrum model is pretty popular. Here is one (a really bad one in my opinion) I found in 2 seconds:

http://whakahekeheke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/political_spectrum.png?w=532&h=498

The basic idea is that both the left and the right sort of cross over with each other at extremes.

[Tim Finnegan]

Oh, wait, that old thing? Eugh, I thought we left that behind with the Cold War...

I must say, though, that particular construction is odd. Usually it's used to present centralist liberalism in opposition to Commienazism, which, inane as it is, at least has some clunky internal logic. That one is just strange.

[T-Paine]

Oh, wait, that old thing? Eugh, I thought we left that behind with the Cold War...

I must say, though, that particular construction is odd. Usually it's used to present centralist liberalism in opposition to Commienazism, which, inane as it is, at least has some clunky internal logic. That one is just strange.

I agree, like I said it was pretty much the first on google images. I usually don't get nitpicky about political spectrum representations though, they are all as imperfect as political semantics themselves.

[ComradeTim]

Marx wasn't a leftist.
So he was a rightist?

[RGacky3]

I'm sorry but that circle spectrum is rediculous (as are most spectrums). Progressives are NOTHING like neocons, Anarchists are NOTHING like libertarians.

ideologies are just collections of understandings and principles, its not a spectrum.

[Thirsty Crow]

So he was a rightist?
I believe that NHIA refers to the label "left-wing" as in "the left wing of capital" (meaning a continuum of reformist positions - from New Labour to traditional socialdemocratic parties). By this criterion, Marx was certainly not a leftist.


I'm sorry but that circle spectrum is rediculous (as are most spectrums). Progressives are NOTHING like neocons, Anarchists are NOTHING like libertarians.

The thing is, libertarians (propertarians, that is) and anarchists have something in common: the emphasis on civil liberties.
When someone figures that out, it is all too easy to single out this specific facet of political persuasion and transform it into a dominant criterion for assessment of the ideology in question.

But, yeah, I'd agree that the underlying difference between the two is fundamental.