From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Sun Dec 31 2006 - 12:00:15 EST
To change the world we have to clarify our concepts, to know what we have to change and how we have to change. For this we have to free ourselves from influences of bourgeois theories. To do this we have to state the fundamental differences. I agree with you that this is the first step. In other papers I developed ideas about how to combine the concept of reform and revolution. So one of the core ideas I put forward is shortening the working hours without any reduction in wages. But I say in my papers always that these measures are never safe under capitalist conditions. To humanise the world we have to change it essentially. I thought that was clear to you after so many emails passed between you and me. In einer eMail vom 31.12.2006 17:06:47 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK: I agree that we have to distinguish Keynesianism from Marxism which has quite different and much more radical goals, but what I am saying is that a social and political theorist like yourself has to take advantage of their understanding of these issues to go beyond just commenting on the difference between theorists. The point is to change the world, and to do that one needs to argue for policies. Paul Cockshott www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Dogan Goecmen Sent: Sun 12/31/2006 2:36 PM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) Paul, my paper is a short one and therefore its aim is restricted to the answering of the question of what is the nature and relationship of two theories, namely that of Keynes and Marx. The main thesis of the paper is that Keynes' theory is conservative, whereas the theory of Marx is revolutionary. This answers also the question about their relationship. In writing this paper my aim was not to justify or criticise any party policy. I am not a party ideologist but a scientifically minded social and political theorist. In Germany and in many other countries I know people, in particular in left wing movements, mix up Keynesianism and Marxism. My immediate aim was to clarify this question. As far as I see you seem to agree with my characterisation of these theories. Paul: As such it admits the possibility of political intervention being necessary in order for the economy to be regulated. Dogan: I think that all theories of political economy in one way or another justify state intervention. Some of them do this explicitly others more implicitly. But they all justify in one way or another state intervention. This is not the defining feature just of Keynes' economic theory. I recommend to read Luxemburg's posthumously published 'Intorduction to Political Economy'.She gives there a very interesting explanation about two-fold function of vulgar economy. One is to manupulate people and another is to develop policy poroposals for people behinf the bars.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 00:00:05 EST