The problem with neoliberalism...

[Kadir Ateş]

Every time I hear a leftist start off a critique of the current crisis with neolliberalism, I want to pull my hair out. Most of the time when I hear it used--usually by the Monthly Review crowd--a return to the "real economy" is almost always implied as a solution. Or worse, they drone on about "workers' control" which is also just another way to organize labour without abolishing the law of value.

Thoughts?

[HEAD ICE]

I agree, it is pretty irritating. Like the MR crowd, people who use neoliberalism to pin the tail on the crisis are openly Keynesian most of the time (for example David Harvey).

[Kadir Ateş]

And yes, speaking of Harvey, it's about time people picked up Capital for themselves are stop listening to this underconsumptionist nonsense.

[Jose Gracchus]

Can you provide for evidence on that? David Harvey's Keynesianism?

What's everyone got against Monthly Review, that it is flabby unprincipled Brezhnevism that sees "socialism" in every Keynesian stimulus, welfare package, or makework?

[Kadir Ateş]

Can you provide for evidence on that? David Harvey's Keynesianism?Sure, but before I do I want to clarify what I mean by Keynesianism. The term itself is fairly broad, and one shouldn't get too boggled down with just attaching the name to John Maynard Keynes in particular. In fact, JMK himself even wrote in the preface to his classic A Theory of General Employment even said that the first country to use "his" methods was the Nazi Party. In the German edition of ATGE, Keynes wrote:


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

You can guess who he was referring to at the time...

But in fact, many state capitalist regimes also used Keynesian-like methods in order to manage their economies. So what is "Keynesianism" if not simply limited to the British economist's definition? It basically acknowledges that the market does have a tendency to crash and go into crisis, unlike neoclassical economics, which states that the market cannot, but only external forces make it do so. That the problem originates in the underconsumption of the working class to its share of the product (it makes), thus lacks what bourgeois economists called "effective demand". Keynes as well as others believed that the "visible hand of the state" should step in where the invisible one blew it, but the problem is that the state itself cannot produce "value" in the Marxian sense as a capitalist firm does from its workers. In Paul Mattick Jr.'s excellent critique of Harvey's Limits to Capital, Mattick quotes the following from H.:


Harvey: on built environments or social improvements prove productive (i.e. facilitative
of more efficient forms of capital accumulation later on) then the fi ctitious values
are redeemed (either directly by retirement of debt or indirectly in the form of,
say, higher tax returns to pay off state debt)Now, Mattick:


Mattick: From Marx’s perspective, of course, such ‘investment’ cannot be productive, at least in the
capitalistically relevant sense of productive of surplus-value. In principle, future surplus value
produced by a renewed accumulation of capital could be used to pay off state or private debt invested in capitalistically nonproductive resources, but even this would
represent a net deduction from the produced surplus-value.Mattick's right. He continues on saying that historically during a crisis situation, this has been the case. I would also point out, that historically, this can be illustrated in development models, which are nothing new--Loren Goldner, for example, has traced back their origins to the American economist Henry Carey (for those interested, Marx does a good job critiquing Carey and Bastiat in the Grundrisse), who resolved that the state does need to play a significant role in shielding domestic capitalists from bigger, international competitors, or the "competition of capitals", as Marx would say.

Any time you hear a Marxist talk about "lack of effective demand" that should give you a clue as to where they're coming from economically.


What's everyone got against Monthly Review, that it is flabby unprincipled Brezhnevism that sees "socialism" in every Keynesian stimulus, welfare package, or makework? MR is the most opportunistic strand of so-called socialism I've ever read. They are staffed by underconsumptionist left-Keynesians, Maoists, and Stalinists. They conceive capital not as a social relation and process, but confine the term to its bourgeois use as a thing which can be redirected to social needs.

[KurtFF8]

Neither the MR or David Harvey are Keynesian. The MR does often appeal to some Keynesian concepts in its criticisms of Neoliberalism indeed, but I'm not too sure if that makes them Keynesian, as they constantly demonstrate how Keynesian economics is still about working within the parameters of capitalism.

As for Harvey and calling him Keynesian, that just doesn't make sense and I would love to see someone attempt to actually demonstrate this.

And as for criticizing Neoliberalism: it's essentially solely the Marxist Left that even talks about Neoliberalism, let alone critiques it. So I'm not sure what this rant against talk of it is about

[Kadir Ateş]

Neither the MR or David Harvey are Keynesian. The MR does often appeal to some Keynesian concepts in its criticisms of Neoliberalism indeed, but I'm not too sure if that makes them Keynesian, as they constantly demonstrate how Keynesian economics is still about working within the parameters of capitalism.

And how would you define the parameters of capitalism?


As for Harvey and calling him Keynesian, that just doesn't make sense and I would love to see someone attempt to actually demonstrate this.

I've tried to post my response to Inform Candidate, but the moderator has yet to approve of my response...


And as for criticizing Neoliberalism: it's essentially solely the Marxist Left that even talks about Neoliberalism, let alone critiques it. So I'm not sure what this rant against talk of it is about

I've heard neoliberalism talked about in liberal circles, the discussion is by no means limited to Marxists.

[Feodor Augustus]

...people who use neoliberalism to pin the tail on the crisis are openly Keynesian most of the time

Incidentally, you can make the argument that the intellectual flaws/divisions in Keynesian thought are compatible with, and in part led to, neo-liberal ideas. There is, on the one hand, the Keynesian theory of income distribution, which at its most crude can be used to suggest that workers get paid what they deserve, and that trade unions, labour laws, etc., are thus little more than 'market distortions'. On the other, there is the Keynesian belief that unemployment is especially caused and exacerbated because of wage rigidity, which can be used to argue against minimum wage laws, and even the idea of full employment itself.

One could even make the case, given Keynes famous pragmatism, and also the tendency for 'neo-liberal' regimes to use counter-cyclical methods (particularly the US, but as of late pretty much all of the advanced capitalist nations), that rather than being a radical break with Keynesianism, neo-liberalism is in effect a kind of neo-Keynesianism.

An even better argument would however be that regardless of what their academic advocates may claim, alongside most of their left-wing critics, the economic policy of modern governments is neither and both. It is something of a mish-mash, that arises not out of the power of an argument in a textbook, but concrete social forces. To talk of 'neo-liberalism' is thus something of a trendy gimmick, the hue and cry of left-capitalism, which appears to be the general thrust of most of the other comments in this thread.


In fact, JMK himself even wrote in the preface to his classic A Theory of General Employment even said that the first country to use "his" methods was the Nazi Party.

I always found it highly amusing how the very overrated Keynes could say, with no intended irony, that the 'encroachment of ideas' trumped 'vast social forces', that his reference to the academic in the back of the government officials mind was in effect a reference to himself, and yet at the same time it was the really obvious social fact (that the Soviet Union was not affected by the Great Depression in the same way as the west was) that must of at least partially guided his solutions, and certainly proved to be the concrete fact that supported his conclusions in the minds of many.

Keynes ego was far bigger than his intellect, and as I think Hayek said, if he had not have died so soon after the war, and subsequently been made a saint, then we wouldn't have such a high opinion of him.

[KurtFF8]

And how would you define the parameters of capitalism?

Working within the system to reform it versus a working class revolution. I would imagine this distinction is quite clear and obvious to the socialist Left.



I've tried to post my response to Inform Candidate, but the moderator has yet to approve of my response...

It seems you can respond now since you are responding to my post.



I've heard neoliberalism talked about in liberal circles, the discussion is by no means limited to Marxists.

Perhaps not solely talked about by Marxists, I would imagine that some left liberals do discuss it. For example Keynesians would indeed like to return to a Keynesian system. But the idea that critiquing Neoliberalism is not something the socialist Left should do just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Ocean Seal]

I think that Gacky had a good and simple critique of neoliberalism and I think that I'm taking a point or two from his thread on the subject. Keynesianism is simply responsible capitalism. It is not left or right, it is the way that the ruling class can best work the economy to its interests, especially in times of crisis. Neo-liberalism is the cry of the large corporations to encourage down-regulation to push up profits in the short run and crush labor when it is possible. However, neo-liberalism is the way that the ruling class maintains the workers directly reliant upon its interests. It simply doesn't work after a while and modifies itself into what JM Keynes wanted. The evidence being the start of the Regan era (neo-liberal) ending in TARP and later the Obama bailouts. That being said, there should be no praise for Keynesianism because it is unadulterated capitalism. However, neo-liberalism is merely a dream by an unproven theory of Hayek and Mises which is not based on the least bit of scientific skepticism, nor is it either possible or reasonable.

[KurtFF8]

But I'm not sure who "praises" Keynesianism. The Monthly Review does often engage with Keynesian ideas, yes, but that's hardly an endorsement of Keynesian political (or even economic policies) as opposed to actual socialism. I read the MR quite often and have not found an endorsement of just reforming capitalism by them at all.

Keynesianism can be used as a tool to demonstrate fault with the implementation of Neoliberal ideas, and it seems to be a good tool for that. Marxism is a good method of analysis for critiquing both, and demonstrating why socialism should replace capitalism instead of reforming it. The MR promotes this line, not the reformist line.

Engaging with pro-capitalist thinkers does not make one sympathetic to their ideas automatically by any stretch. Imagine if Marx didn't appeal to classical political economists, we would not have the Marxist version of the labor theory of value for example.

[Ocean Seal]

But I'm not sure who "praises" Keynesianism. The Monthly Review does often engage with Keynesian ideas, yes, but that's hardly an endorsement of Keynesian political (or even economic policies) as opposed to actual socialism. I read the MR quite often and have not found an endorsement of just reforming capitalism by them at all.

Keynesianism can be used as a tool to demonstrate fault with the implementation of Neoliberal ideas, and it seems to be a good tool for that. Marxism is a good method of analysis for critiquing both, and demonstrating why socialism should replace capitalism instead of reforming it. The MR promotes this line, not the reformist line.

Engaging with pro-capitalist thinkers does not make one sympathetic to their ideas automatically by any stretch. Imagine if Marx didn't appeal to classical political economists, we would not have the Marxist version of the labor theory of value for example.
I agree with every point here. That was more or less what I was stating. I just believe that Keynesianism and neoliberalism are one in the same, but that neo-liberalism is unsubstantiated and based on quasi-religious belief whereas Keynesianism is based on active reality.

[KurtFF8]

I agree with every point here. That was more or less what I was stating. I just believe that Keynesianism and neoliberalism are one in the same, but that neo-liberalism is unsubstantiated and based on quasi-religious belief whereas Keynesianism is based on active reality.

How exactly are they one in the same? They're wholly different ideological approaches to the manner in which capital will continue to grow and exist. Different in the sense of the question of how the government (or in non-Marxian terms: "the state") will intervene in the economy in terms of investment.

They both also have vastly different political characteristics. The most striking example being the alliance between labor (or labor bureaucracy) and elements of a bourgeois party,

[Kotze]

Incidentally, you can make the argument that the intellectual flaws/divisions in Keynesian thought are compatible with, and in part led to, neo-liberal ideas.Yes, I'm sure what Keynes said about euthanasia of the rentier and the need for socializing investment made him many fans among the rich, that's basically proto-neoliberalism :rolleyes:
There is, on the one hand, the Keynesian theory of income distribution, which at its most crude can be used to suggest that workers get paid what they deserve, and that trade unions, labour laws, etc., are thus little more than 'market distortions'. On the other, there is the Keynesian belief that unemployment is especially caused and exacerbated because of wage rigidity, which can be used to argue against minimum wage laws, and even the idea of full employment itself.What does this have to do with what Keynes actually wrote? What sort of drugs do you need to take to get from his remarks about rentiers, about gambling on stock markets, about involuntary unemployment that people get what they deserve? Keynes actually wrote in the General Theory that if all prices were flexible, lowering wages in general couldn't change unemployment or basically anything. He wrote that some price stickiness is needed to have stability in a monetary system.

It's clear to anybody who has actually read Keynes' General Theory that neither you nor Kadir Ateş have done so. I would appreciate it if "intellectuals" like you spent less time making up shit or repeating right-wing lies(!) and actually bothered reading what they pretend to criticize, otherwise the misinformation you spread is just another (tiny, but still) roadblock for the left.

[Kadir Ateş]

It's clear to anybody who has actually read Keynes' General Theory that neither you nor Kadir Ateş have done so. I would appreciate it if "intellectuals" like you spent less time making up shit or repeating right-wing lies(!) and actually bothered reading what they pretend to criticize, otherwise the misinformation you spread is just another (tiny, but still) roadblock for the left.

Who cares about the left? I care about the working class and its communization. It doesn't take the working class to have to sit down and read the entire theory in order to prevent them from getting to "communism"--that's a basic bourgeois ideological mistake. Such thinking is the sign of vulgar Marxism.

Secondly, if you had bothered to read the earlier posts, "Keynesianism" was broadly defined, as even Keynes himself noted on the Nazi economy, some of his ideas were being put into place. Indeed what lies at the heart of state capitalism is attempts for the state to counteract crisis, something which Keynes developed in A General Theory.

As for KurtFF8, you do realize that workers' control is not tantamount to abolishing capitalist social relations. It is not enough for the workers to just assume power, and then attempt to direct investment into welfare programs, etc. Here's Marx's minimal understanding of capitalism: is value being produced? Yes? Then it's not socialism. MR has backed countless of regimes where allegedly the workers have seized control of the means of production, socialized it, and then started to export oil, rubber, coffee, whatever to other states. That sounds an awful lot like capitalism to me. Capitalism just isn't an economic system, it's a social relation, which makes it quite hard to overthrow.

[Ocean Seal]

How exactly are they one in the same? They're wholly different ideological approaches to the manner in which capital will continue to grow and exist. Different in the sense of the question of how the government (or in non-Marxian terms: "the state") will intervene in the economy in terms of investment.

They both also have vastly different political characteristics. The most striking example being the alliance between labor (or labor bureaucracy) and elements of a bourgeois party,
They are one in the same in that they are bourgeois systems used to ensure the preservation of the bourgeois state. They are used rather interchangeably and serve the same purpose.

[Savage]

wait...a good thread? on revleft?

[KurtFF8]

Who cares about the left? I care about the working class and its communization. It doesn't take the working class to have to sit down and read the entire theory in order to prevent them from getting to "communism"--that's a basic bourgeois ideological mistake. Such thinking is the sign of vulgar Marxism.

Secondly, if you had bothered to read the earlier posts, "Keynesianism" was broadly defined, as even Keynes himself noted on the Nazi economy, some of his ideas were being put into place. Indeed what lies at the heart of state capitalism is attempts for the state to counteract crisis, something which Keynes developed in A General Theory.

As for KurtFF8, you do realize that workers' control is not tantamount to abolishing capitalist social relations. It is not enough for the workers to just assume power, and then attempt to direct investment into welfare programs, etc. Here's Marx's minimal understanding of capitalism: is value being produced? Yes? Then it's not socialism. MR has backed countless of regimes where allegedly the workers have seized control of the means of production, socialized it, and then started to export oil, rubber, coffee, whatever to other states. That sounds an awful lot like capitalism to me. Capitalism just isn't an economic system, it's a social relation, which makes it quite hard to overthrow.

Theory is quite important to revolutionary struggle. Hence little works like Capital, State and Revolution, etc. etc. The idea that things will just happen and we don't have to worry about theory is quite a bad idea, considering the whole 20th century thing. Just take the concept of false consciousness as a key to understanding why revolutionary movements in Western industrialized nations failed. Was Gramsci just some intellectual theorist when he attempted to develop a better understanding of hegemony?

And the abolition of capitalist social relations is indeed a prerequisite for worker's control over the means of production? I would say yes, that seems to be part of the definition of workers' control.

And if you're going to try to say that the MR's support for countries like Cuba makes their analysis of what socialism is erroneous, I would ask you to point out exactly what flaws in their analysis you're referring to here. And if you're speaking about Cuba (not sure what else you would be referring to), I would highly suggest the article How to Visit a Socialist Country (http://monthlyreview.org/2010/04/01/how-to-visit-a-socialist-country) (Although the alternate title was "How to see Socialism" which I think was actually more appropriate considering the dual meaning of "to see" in that title considering the article)


They are one in the same in that they are bourgeois systems used to ensure the preservation of the bourgeois state. They are used rather interchangeably and serve the same purpose.

Keynesianism and Neoliberalism are not systems but certain ideologies (or theories). They do both serve to continue capitalist productive relations indeed, but that doesn't make them equal.

[Feodor Augustus]

Yes, I'm sure what Keynes said about euthanasia of the rentier and the need for socializing investment made him many fans among the rich, that's basically proto-neoliberalism.

Keynes was not a radical economist, not by a long shot. What Red Brother wrote seems a very sound verdict to me:


Keynesianism is simply responsible capitalism. It is not left or right, it is the way that the ruling class can best work the economy to its interests, especially in times of crisis. Neo-liberalism... simply doesn't work after a while and modifies itself into what JM Keynes wanted.

First, it is important to remember that the Bretton Woods system, - i.e. Keynes' theories applied to the real economic world, - was a system of embedded liberalism, as the popular terminology likes to put it. In this respect, certain reforms and concessions are seen as essential to maintaining the system; while 'the need for socializing investment' can be found in Adam Smith, - hence why Gordon Brown calls himself a disciple, - and Ricardo hardly held rentiers in high regard.

What Marx called the 'vulgar economics' of the 1830s onwards did much to obscure the more considered approaches of the classical economists; and while Keynes himself broke with them on a number of important theoretical points, he can be seen as in part reviving their tradition. (Although Keynes, the mighty ego, of course invented his own definition of classical economics: everyone who had come before him!) Most of the classical economists, - i.e. Smith, the two Mill's, Bentham, Malthus, Senior, McCulloch, Ricardo, of the names I can remember off hand, - supported intervention into the economy under some circumstances, and also socialised investment in some sectors - the military is the most obvious. They also quite often showed a preference for profits over rents, and thus Keynes fits well into their tradition of liberal pragmatism towards economic matters: i.e. solutions based on liberal principles, but not through a doctrinaire adherence to these principles.

I suggest you (Kotze) try to take Keynes less at face value, and instead consider him more within the traditions in which he operated. In this context, he is not a radical economist; and while certain policies will upset 'the rich', 'the rich' should not be simply conflated with the government. Policy-makers have a different set of pressures than the short-term gain that usually motivates 'the rich'; indeed, the key aim of liberal governmental structures is to ensure long-term social stability and law and order, which in turn enable the economy to function properly. Thus it does not matter whether Keynes was popular amongst 'the rich': but it does matter that he was popular amongst policy elites. (The same applies to the classical economists, who were certainly not that popular amongst 'the rich' of their day: who were, of course, the large landowning aristocratic families.)

As to what you wrote in response to my comments about Keynesian theories of income distribution and wage rigidity. If you reread what I wrote, you will see that the focus is not limited to Keynes alone, but rather the application of his theories, and what I called the 'flaws/divisions' in his thought: i.e. the differences in interpretation between those who have followed in his footsteps. Moreover, given that Keynes himself saw his methods as widely applicable, and that many nation-states have utilised Keynesian-esque policies, we could perhaps call a great many people 'Keynesian', and few of these need know anything about the finer points of his general theory.

It depends, I guess, on whether Keynesianism is seen as just a theory, or instead a wider phenomena; which is essentially what this thread asks, but with respects to neo-liberalism. In my view it is something of a mistake to see these things as a phenomena, and in effect it legitimises their core ideological narrative. Economic policy is conditioned by more factors than simply economic theory, and while Keynes, like many other economists, said things policy-makers thought were worth listening too, he was not all that influential, nor all that right.

Keynes is, in effect, the intellectual figurehead of an economic period. Thus it was not simply that he was good theorist, but that he published his major works at important historical conjunctures. (The same applies to Hayek and Friedman today, but they are even less talented and influential.) This should not however obscure the fact that he was but a powerful echo of a thousand other voices, and that for someone to accept past 1929 that capitalism could enter periods of crises was hardly a radical departure from the orthodoxy. Any economist who in say, 1931, could claim that mass unemployment and capitalist crisis was not possible would have surely been considered a crank: what marked Keynes out was that he a something a little more constructive to say about how to solve the situation.

In this respect, I think the most constructive thing Keynes theories really represent is the revival of liberal pragmatism. To use again Red Brother's very good shorthand: 'Keynesianism is simply responsible capitalism. It is not left or right, it is the way that the ruling class can best work the economy to its interests, especially in times of crisis.' Indeed Keynes official biographer, Robert Skidelsky, argues that had Keynes been around in the 1970s he would have sided against policy-making orthodoxy of the day - which is generally considered to be 'Keynesian' in theory and method. You (Kotze) simply appear to be reading Keynes through your own particular ideological lens, which leads you to think that when he wrote something you support, it must be because he viewed things like you do. This is not the case, and many of the things you view as positives have a long lineage in liberal thought: just not the popular Marxist stereotype of liberal thought, which is perhaps even more crude than the liberal stereotype of Marxist thought.

[Kadir Ateş]

Theory is quite important to revolutionary struggle. Hence little works like Capital, State and Revolution, etc. etc. The idea that things will just happen and we don't have to worry about theory is quite a bad idea, considering the whole 20th century thing.First of all, I said that it doesn't take theory for the working class to emancipate, i.e., to communise itself, it only takes theory to understand what capital is and the limits of bourgeois society. By reading such works it won't give them a strategy for emancipation, which is the mistake of vulgar Marxism like certain mutant strands like Maoism or Stalinism.


Just take the concept of false consciousness as a key to understanding why revolutionary movements in Western industrialized nations failed. Was Gramsci just some intellectual theorist when he attempted to develop a better understanding of hegemony?Please point to me where in Marx's works he uses such a ridiculous nonsense. "False Consciousness" is a category that fails to recognize what ideology truly is: a political/religious belief that is an expression of a real material condition. To quote from the Grundrisse:

The abstraction, or idea, however, is nothing more than the theoretical expression of those material relations which are their lord and master. Relations can be expressed, of course, only in ideas, and thus philosophers have determined the reign of ideas to be the peculiarity of the new age, and have identified the creation of free individuality with the overthrow of this reign. This error was all the more easily committed, form the ideological stand-point, as this reign exercised by the relations (this objective dependency, which, incidentally, turns into certain definite relations of personal dependency, but stripped of all illusions) appears within the consciousness of individuals as the reign of ideas, and because the belief in the permanence of these ideas, i.e. of these objective relations of dependency, is of course consolidated, nourished and inculcated by the ruling classes by all means available.

The reason why revolution did not prevail in places like Western Europe (I assume you mean why nothing happened in the wake of the October Revolution in Russia--hell, even today for that matter) is the absolutely vicious class war in which the European and American bourgeoisie were successful in smashing the labor movement. Morever, as economic conditions improved after WWII, there was less of a likelihood for instances of class struggle, until the Keynesian welfare state began to erode due to the high organic composition of capital and the shifting tendencies of relative surplus and absolute surplus value extraction which really started to pick up by the late 1970s, hence we come to the bogus term "neoliberal" which is really a term used to differentiate between "good" capitalism and "bad" capitalism.

As for Gramsci, it was too bad that in none of this writings, he bothered to deal with questions of political economy but made his way quietly into the Stalinist camp before his death.


And the abolition of capitalist social relations is indeed a prerequisite for worker's control over the means of production? I would say yes, that seems to be part of the definition of workers' control.Any experimentation with "workers' control" of the past needs to be remembered in a solemn ceremony--closed casket--and buried. Workers control, what an absolute absurdity! Marx never spoke of the need for "workers' control" in so far as to state that it should be accompanied with the completion destruction of the law of value! "Workers' state" these days is the productivist view, which simply wants to figure out ways of organizing workers "democratically" in order to produce commodities for the market.


And if you're going to try to say that the MR's support for countries like Cuba makes their analysis of what socialism is erroneous, I would ask you to point out exactly what flaws in their analysis you're referring to here. And if you're speaking about Cuba (not sure what else you would be referring to), I would highly suggest the article How to Visit a Socialist Country (http://www.anonym.to/?http://monthlyreview.org/2010/04/01/how-to-visit-a-socialist-country) (Although the alternate title was "How to see Socialism" which I think was actually more appropriate considering the dual meaning of "to see" in that title considering the article)I tend to side with Marx over anybody else in defining what "socialism" means. It is first and foremost, not tied to any state apparatus, of money, of commodities, of the value-form. Anything short is capitalism.

[Kotze]

As to what you wrote in response to my comments about Keynesian theories of income distribution and wage rigidity. If you reread what I wrote, you will see that the focus is not limited to Keynes alone, but rather the application of his theories, and what I called the 'flaws/divisions' in his thoughtMy claim was that you don't know what he wrote in the first place. My charge was that you haven't read the General Theory. You haven't simply replied to that and your arguments, if they can be called that, are vague and indirect: "Indeed Keynes official biographer [what's an official biographer], Robert Skidelsky [who has never met Keynes], argues that [something about what that guy said what he believes Keynes would have said about some situation several decades after his death]." :rolleyes:
You (Kotze) simply appear to be reading Keynes through your own particular ideological lens, which leads you to think that when he wrote something you support, it must be because he viewed things like you do.Oddly enough, it is I who directly refers to what Keynes wrote, I don't say he was secretly a Marxist-Leninist, and it is you who goes into a game of associative chains: What did he really, reallyreally, like, believe maaan, and what did other people believe who believed very different things and the wrong things they believe show the flaws in his thought, duuude.

[Feodor Augustus]

Kotze, my last post was a considered reply to what I thought was the substantive content of your criticism(s). However your decision to ignore the substance of my post, and instead resort to ad hominems, only reflects poorly on you. It is sophistry of the tallest order.

Case in point:


Oddly enough, it is I who directly refers to what Keynes wrote, I don't say he was secretly a Marxist-Leninist, and it is you who goes into a game of associative chains: What did he really, reallyreally, like, believe maaan, and what did other people believe who believed very different things and the wrong things they believe show the flaws in his thought, duuude.

Lets take a look at what you did say:


Yes, I'm sure what Keynes said about euthanasia of the rentier and the need for socializing investment made him many fans among the rich, that's basically proto-neoliberalism

Now, as I said in my original reply, what you have said here appears to imply that Keynes is in some way useful to the Left. As you yourself commented, 'misinformation' about Keynes presents a 'roadblock for the left'. The tone and point of your comments seemed quite obvious, and the general thrust is indeed that Keynesian economics are not popular 'among the rich': which, by inference, suggests that they must therefore appeal to 'the poor'.

In my reply, I pointed out that the category of 'the rich' is itself problematic; and that regardless of Keynes' (lack of) influence over this group, the real world application of Keynesian economics resulted in systems of embedded liberalism. Systems that, as Harold Wilson's government found out in the late 1970s, were not particularly conducive to even moderate socialist reforms. Moreover, the limited concessions that are allowed under such systems are not only vital to ensuring their long-term feasibility, but are also not original to Keynes. As I pointed out, a negative conception of the role of rentiers, alongside the advocacy of socialised investment, can be found within classical economics. You are thus quite clearly (and erroneously) misconstruing long-standing liberal positions to be those of the Left.

Keynes stands in a tradition of liberal economists: the only 'roadblock' is to think him a friend, which he most certainly was not.


My claim was that you don't know what he wrote in the first place. My charge was that you haven't read the General Theory. You haven't simply replied to that and your arguments, if they can be called that, are vague and indirect: "Indeed Keynes official biographer [what's an official biographer], Robert Skidelsky [who has never met Keynes], argues that [something about what that guy said what he believes Keynes would have said about some situation several decades after his death]."

For you to say that I have not replied to the content of your post is a bit rich: not only because I did reply to the serious points you raised, but also because you have completely ignored the substance of my comments, and instead chosen to resort to insults and misdirection. Indeed what you now claim to be the core of your argument, - that I have not read Keynes General Theory, - can be found at the bottom of your original post, and in the form of a quite frivolous insult.

Here it is:


It's clear to anybody who has actually read Keynes' General Theory that neither you nor Kadir Ateş have done so. I would appreciate it if "intellectuals" like you spent less time making up shit or repeating right-wing lies(!) and actually bothered reading what they pretend to criticize, otherwise the misinformation you spread is just another (tiny, but still) roadblock for the left.

I apologise if I mistook this 'serious' argument for what it was: pointless invective. And instead responded to the more concrete points you raised. I just really don't see much worth responding to here. It is a simple 'yes' or 'no' question, and whichever way one answers, the onus would still be on you to support your arguments: i.e. to demonstrate how we have 'made up shit' and 'repeated right-wing lies'. Where you did attempt this, - i.e. in the comments about socialised investment and the euthanasia of rentiers, - I responded. That you have not dealt with these responses, and instead repeated your original mantra, indicates that for all your claims to special knowledge, you cannot counter the 'misinformation'.

If however this issue is that important to you, then I will answer: yes, I have read Keynes General Theory - although I'm sure this will not be enough for you. Moreover, the points about income distribution and wage rigidity are not original to me, but from a chapter on Keynes written by someone who I presume is more knowledgeable on the subject than either you or I. If you like, I can provide a reference: or better yet, maybe you can just respond to what I wrote about Keynesianism in practice - i.e., of course, after Keynes was dead.

That one of the few points you do raise in response to my post is to quibble over my use of the phrase 'official biographer', only emphasises that what passes for argument in your mind, is in fact specious nonsense. I will happily engage in a civil and polite debate with you, but you don't appear to be interested in that. If you are, then please deal with the points I have raised: because as it stands, you are really trying my patience, and I won't bother responding again if your contributions carry on in the vein they have so far taken.