Now that I think about it, you could view Keynesianism as an attempt to overcome blockage points in the circulation process. That would probably be the Marxist (circulatory) analysis of its policies.
Maybe because they're piss poor after all that military spending and bank bail-outs? :P Keynesianism, in one form or another, is pretty much standard policy for much of the Western World. Military spending as one example, or (rail)road construction, housing, etc. In Germany the crisis hasn't really hit that bad for the gov to panic, but I have no idea about the US. I think Obama is up to his ears in other shit already? Greece and most other poor EU states like Portugal and Spain either don't have the money, or have nothing to spend it on (Keynesianism is most effective when channeled into production), and those countries have little industrial capabilities. So I guess it comes down to "we don't need it" VS "we can't afford it", and barely anything in between.
Why isn't the bourgeois trying Keynesianism now? I'd like to hear your view on that.
Keynesianism... well to me the guy himself kinda had the right idea for a cappie (as far as that goes for a non-socialist) but sold his ideas short before the wealthy elites because he feared it might scare them off, his stuff apparently was that radical at the time (1930s). Keynesianism and Post-Keynesianism have been distorted into the new orthodoxy and reconciled with concepts Keynes himself would have laughed at. Anyway, it's been conceived as a theory to save capitalism from itself but now is just another tool in the box of the bourgies. The ideas are still not in any way materialist, but at least recognized the reality of class struggle and tried to incorporate that into his theory, wage rigidity as one example. I consider most contemporary Keynesians as crude liberal Third Positionists though (aka latent fascists), and it's no real secret the Nazis implemented Keynesian policies, even if they may not be aware of it, not sure on that.
What do you think of Keynesianism? And what part of Economics attracts your interest primarily?
Yeah, most of his theory is laid out in Vol 1 anyway, 2 and 3 are more like constructing a model around it, some of it is really no-brainer stuff though. I haven't watched those videos yet, but I watched the Harvey lectures while reading Vol 1. I had no friggin idea how to "read" Capital though so he was setting me on the right track, and inspired by him I want to write an essay on "The temporal dynamics of value". Harvey makes some interesting notes on the importance of time under capitalism and how "it all speeds up", which is also highlighted in his lectures on Vol 2. I want to see if there's more to it and thus I'll re-read Vol 1, or the relevant chapters on this.
No, I havent. Reading all the volumes to understand what marx calls the ''Law of value'' isn't required, thankfully. Although I have all 3 volumes, I just don't have the time to read it all, yet... http://www.youtube.com/user/brendanm...e=results_main This guys series on Marxist economics is great.
Have you read all 3 vols of Capital or are you just trying to give a general outline? A general outline is easy to construct but especially in Vol 2 there are finer points where one can disagree with Marx without delving into REVISIONISM. lol.
I'm going to write a short summary of Marxist Economics.. to see whether I've comprehended it correctly.. soon-ish. I've got 2 essays to write this month, so that's priority.
I tell them they're right, but only in regards to bourgeois economics. That one is highly idealist with its conceptions of a homo oeconomicus, the perfectly rational, atomized individual out to maximize his utility. Basically the whole "science" is built around that. Marxian Economic Theory, at least the non-Analytical Marxist varieties, are fucking solid (what else would I think of them, haha).
