Krugman discovers Marx and is uncomfortable

[RedMaterialist]

"I think our eyes have been averted from the capital/labor dimension of inequality, for several reasons. It didn’t seem crucial back in the 1990s, and not enough people (me included!) have looked up to notice that things have changed. It has echoes of old-fashioned Marxism — which shouldn’t be a reason to ignore facts, but too often is. And it has really uncomfortable implications." December 8, 2012, New York Times, Krugman Blog.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ This Bastard Keynesian would be more uncomfortable to find that Marx was a supply-side economist, but from the perspective of labour and not capital.

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO Marxian political economy is entirely different from either demand side or supply side bourgeois economics. I became convinced in the late 1970s that David Harvey was the best-informed living, English-speaking theorist with regard to Marx's Capital so I would defer to his opinion if it is contrary to mine.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You're buying into the mainstream definition of "supply side economics," which is entirely capital-based. Capitalist markets can be divided into three: consumer goods and services markets ("demand"), labour markets, and capital markets. We should focus on Labour Supply-Side, Behavioural Political Economy, which is what a number of Post-Keynesians are at least doing.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's a massive irony that you try to distinguish between 'bad' ('bastard') and 'good' (Post-) Keynesians.

They're all one and the same, in their policy implications. Government intervention blah blah blah. Manage the capitalist state.

[l'Enfermé]

^You are probably posting in the wrong thread, comrade, because that has little to do with DNZ's post. :)

[Luís Henrique]

Krugman discovers Marx

Good.


and is uncomfortable

Even better.

Luís Henrique

[norwegianwood90]

I'm rather interested to see whether Krugman might shift--even slightly--to the left. I'm pessimistic about the potential for this to happen, but it would be rather remarkable for a mainstream figure in bourgeois political economy (and an American one, no less!) to at least acknowledge the merits of Marx.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I'm rather interested to see whether Krugman might shift--even slightly--to the left. I'm pessimistic about the potential for this to happen, but it would be rather remarkable for a mainstream figure in bourgeois political economy (and an American one, no less!) to at least acknowledge the merits of Marx.

Ain't gonna happen for the simple reason that for Krugman it would be career suicide. Frankly, Krugman has gone about as far as he can go without endangering his gig as a columnist. At least in the good ole USA declaring an open allegiance to Marxism is to quote that old phrase from the movie Moonstruck "shitting where you eat". The USA is a country where bourgeois cultural hegemony has things on a tight lockdown basis. Marx is unmentionable unless in pejorative terms and if you don't toe that line you lose your gig.

[Prometeo liberado]

Not familiar with this Krugman character. What's his first name so I can research this and grant my approval?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Not familiar with this Krugman character. What's his first name so I can research this and grant my approval?

Paul Krugman is his name.

[kashkin]

Not familiar with this Krugman character. What's his first name so I can research this and grant my approval?
Paul Krugman is arguably the most famous Keynesian economist around. He is at best a liberal, in the left-wing of the Democrats. Has been somewhat critical of Obama's stimulus, arguing that it wasn't enough.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Paul Krugman is arguably the most famous Keynesian economist around. He is at best a liberal, in the left-wing of the Democrats. Has been somewhat critical of Obama's stimulus, arguing that it wasn't enough.

I would just reiterate my opinion that whatever Krugman's shortcomings that were he to move further to the left he would be committing career suicide in the USA. In the USA the acceptable political spectrum is skewed to the far right. Real leftism is not acceptable to the American powers-that-be.

[kashkin]

I would just reiterate my opinion that whatever Krugman's shortcomings that were he to move further to the left he would be committing career suicide in the USA. In the USA the acceptable political spectrum is skewed to the far right. Real leftism is not acceptable to the American powers-that-be.

I agree, he would be somewhat famous, but no where to the extent he is at the moment. Though he might still keep his teaching post. I'm not really fussed.

What about Joseph Stiglitz? Is he any better?

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree, he would be somewhat famous, but no where to the extent he is at the moment. Though he might still keep his teaching post. I'm not really fussed.

What about Joseph Stiglitz? Is he any better?

I am not an economist, but both Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz are on the "left" side of what is acceptable to the bourgeoisie, Keynesian economist. IMO one can learn the technical aspects of the "dismal science" better from Stiglitz or Krugman than from a neo-classicist. I am more familiar with Krugman since he is a columnist, but Stiglitz's last two books are at least critical analyses of neoliberalism in power. Not a Marxist critique but still useful.

[Prometeo liberado]

He aslo states that in what he calls Zionisim "....calls current Israeli policy "narrow-minded" and "basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide", saying that it's "bad for Jews everywhere,not to mention the world".[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-175)

I Guess Marx will have to take a back seat to his revolutionary views on Palestine. Zionist first, the world second I guess, right Krugman?

[Grenzer]

^You are probably posting in the wrong thread, comrade, because that has little to do with DNZ's post. :)

Not really. The Boss is actually spot on with his comment; DNZ has gone on record supporting "post-Keynesian" reforms.

Electoralism and reformism are the two fulcrums on which Kautskyism rests, and indeed, you can't really have one without having the other.

One of the most absurd proposals of his that I can recall is replacing union based collective bargaining with the institution of a state agency that would bargain on behalf of the workers. This hearkens back to the flawed Kautskyshite conception(which has its roots in Lassalleanism) of the state as an essentially class neutral vehicle.

Managing Capital is probably the best possible outcome of this nonsense.

[black magick hustla]

.

One of the most absurd proposals of his that I can recall is replacing union based collective bargaining with the institution of a state agency that would bargain on behalf of the workers.

its also a fascist demand "corporatism" imho

[Die Neue Zeit]

One of the most absurd proposals of his that I can recall is replacing union based collective bargaining with the institution of a state agency that would bargain on behalf of the workers.

Notwithstanding BMH's ignorance, there are no illusions in state neutrality in these mere labour disputes, but it would be no worse than business unionism. At least everyone is covered. The point is freeing up time for immediate political activity (the basis for genuine class struggle), something which you've rejected.

[l'Enfermé]

Not really. The Boss is actually spot on with his comment; DNZ has gone on record supporting "post-Keynesian" reforms.
So?



Electoralism and reformism are the two fulcrums on which Kautskyism rests, and indeed, you can't really have one without having the other.
One of the most absurd proposals of his that I can recall is replacing union based collective bargaining with the institution of a state agency that would bargain on behalf of the workers. This hearkens back to the flawed Kautskyshite conception(which has its roots in Lassalleanism) of the state as an essentially class neutral vehicle.
I know you like to discuss subjects like these even though your knowledge of them is very lacking, but I still have to stop you right there.

Really, I don't even know what you mean by "electoralism". You should explain that. I never heard of this word before. Though you are probably referring to Kautsky's parliamentary reductionism, though all the "DNZites" that you're so inexplicably obsessed with, reject it and consider it one of Kautsky's main faults while he was still a Marxist. And reformism? Really? The rejection of reformism and the promotion of revolution is the one of the central points of both the founding document of "Kautskyism", the Class Struggle, it's final chapter, The Road to Power, and everything in between.

And no, the conception of the "state as an essentially class neutral vehicle" actually predates Lassalle. In the socialist movement, it was most famously popularized by Blanc and his followers, around the 1848 revolution, when Blanc's socialist faction was bigger than the other major ones(those of Blanqui and Proudhon)combined. Nowhere in Kautsky, or in Kautsky's disciple Lenin, do we find a conception of the state as a neutral entity class-wise, though we do find ideas like "Like all previous systems of government, the modern state is preeminently an instrument intended to guard the interests of the ruling class"(Kautsky) over and over and over again.

I mean all you're doing is fighting with straw men.


Managing Capital is probably the best possible outcome of this nonsense.

Who's saying that "this nonsense" equals socialism?

But sure, continue using exciting but meaningless buzz-phrases like "managing capital" and "capital's left-wing", no one is going to stop you.

[Lynx]

This byline is reminiscent of "Krugman discovers MMT" that could have been floating around a year and a half ago. In the end, he is just a tease.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Really, I don't even know what you mean by "electoralism". You should explain that. I never heard of this word before.

I'll explain it briefly: electoral machines don't organize things like Alternative Culture, mass spoilage campaigns, mass civil disobedience, etc. They just focus on getting votes and are at the whims of the legislative caucus.

[Luís Henrique]

This byline is reminiscent of "Krugman discovers MMT" that could have been floating around a year and a half ago. In the end, he is just a tease.

Here (http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2011/11/12/paul-krugman-does-modern-money-theory-todays-links/), the proponents of MMT complain of what they describe as Krugman's plagiary behaviour.

I think at least this we are going to be spared. I mean, it would be hard for Krugman to invent Labour Theory of Value, wouldn't it?

Luís Henrique

[Zealot]

On the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto in 1998 it was this same dipshit who wrote that Marx was a "discredited prophet" who couldn't offer "either a comprehensible explanation of why such upheavals happen or any suggestions about what to do about them (except abolish capitalism)."

"By my reckoning, Karl Marx made about as much of a contribution to economics as Zeppo Marx made to comedy... it was Keynes, not Marx, who cracked the code of crisis economics and explained how recessions and depressions can happen. As Japan and the rest of Asia have gone into an economic tailspin, it is Keynesianism, not Marxism, that offers useful guidance about how they might save themselves."

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/08/17/247057/index.htm

[Luís Henrique]

On the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto in 1998 it was this same dipshit who wrote that Marx was a "discredited prophet" who couldn't offer "either a comprehensible explanation of why such upheavals happen or any suggestions about what to do about them (except abolish capitalism)."

"By my reckoning, Karl Marx made about as much of a contribution to economics as Zeppo Marx made to comedy... it was Keynes, not Marx, who cracked the code of crisis economics and explained how recessions and depressions can happen. As Japan and the rest of Asia have gone into an economic tailspin, it is Keynesianism, not Marxism, that offers useful guidance about how they might save themselves."

Yes, which in turn makes his recent "discovery" of Marx more significant. Other Keynesians (as well as most neoliberals) read Keynes into Marx, so aren't "uncomfortable" about old Karl. Krugman seems to notice a difference. I am not overly optimistic that such noticing is remarkably acute, or that it will last, especially if some kind of apparent recovery is going on. But it is better than the usual pretences that Marx doesn't exist, has been refuted, is no different from Keynes, etc.

(Anyway, he was not wrong about this: it is Keynesianism, not Marxism, that offers useful guidance about how they might save themselves. Indeed, Keynesianism might offer some guidance, useful, or - more likely - useless, on how capitalist polities can save themselves. Marxism is not actually interested in saving them at all.)

Luís Henrique

[GoddessCleoLover]

Kudos to the Red Godfather and Luis Henrique for their sharp observations about Krugman's shortcomings. Seems like Pauly ought to be eating his words, but no doubt his ego will prevent any such occurrence.