From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Mon Jan 08 2007 - 18:39:23 EST
Paul, sorry about the delay in replying. We have different interpretations of the same historical data and it is hard to see how one can resolve that scientifically unless these different interpretations lead to different predictions about the future. If that is the case and if the criteria of interpretation of future events are sufficiently unambiguous, then we can put our respective theories to the test. I make some general predictions in the article I posted. I will see if David makes any in his. Paul Cockshott www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Paul Bullock Sent: Wed 1/3/2007 7:55 PM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) Paul C, you have now drawn in more threads to your argument, however the overal position remains one that allows you to be able to reconcile yourself to the Labour Party by viewing Blair as a recent aberration, adapting to a recent dominance of financial capital (which of course is not the same as the concept of finance capital). I disagree with this view. I did not know you use to be in the CP, and it is honest of you to have confirmed my asessment. With respect to the 'ending of european imperialism', I am afraid you are in for a shock. Lenin's assessment of imperialism has not been vitiated by history, on the contrary. The economic reconstruction and unification of European capitalism has placed US- EU imperialist rivalry on the agenda again. This is quite clear. Mrs Merkle has only in the last few days shown she is keen to throw down 'artificial' barriers and openly compete across the Atlantic, such is the confidence of the new European bourgeoisie. The story should need no spelling out. With respect to Ireland then the idea that this is "a classic european irredentist nationalist dispute" is a bluff way of blocking off the real fact of British imperialism's need to hold onto its markets and investments in the whole of Ireland... and what better way than to divide a country? Divide and Rule. You seem to forget that the division is from 1921, and never occurred before in Irish history. It was forced upon the Irish people, with guns, AGAINST a 'democratic' British Parliamentary general election result ! Sinn Fein had a majority in Ulster too. It was your 'progressive' Labour government that sent troops into Ireland in 1969 (even before your financiers had corrupted them) to support an unstable and artificial loyalist statelet, armed with police legislation that even Apartheid South Africa envied; with its Emergency Powers Acts, and Criminal Law Acts, and Pevention of Terrorism Acts and so on. However lets not go further along that road here, except to say on this platform - that the division of Ireland and the failure of the British Working class to force Britain out of the 6 counties has further left an obstacle to unity in the fight against imperialism, between the British working class and the US working class with its particular historic links to Ireland. The radical US workers cannot happily look at a reactionary British labour movement that turns its back on Irish democracy. It is I think important that I repeat that I regard your view of the Labour Party and British Imperialism, to be both consistent and consistently wrong. As I said before this is a form of Kautskyism. I should be more than happy to provide OPE-L members with source material references if any should like to follow up these issues independently. Paul Bullock. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > Paul, > > I am obviously aware of the role of the national liberation struggles. > The position I am putting forward may well have a lot in common with > that of the CP as I used to be in the CP. I would argue that the combination > of the labour and progressive movement in Britain, the national liberation > movements in the colonies and the fraternal support of the USSR and China > had by the mid 60s brought about the end of the British Empire and by > the mid 70s it had brought about the end of all european empires. > The ending of european imperialism was an event of world historic > importance and there is no point pretending that it has not happened. > > If the labour movement had been weaker here, the type of ruthless repression > used by the Tories in Kenya in the 50s would have been generally used against > the colonies as it was by the French state. I thus count the labour movement > here as having been a significant force in bringing about the abandonment > of Empire. On the issue of Indian independence, what more anti-imperialist > policy could the Atlee govt have followed than the one it did? > > On Northern Ireland and on Biafra I have long taken a radically different view > from the RCG, viewing the first as a classic european irredentist nationalist > dispute of which there are half a dozen similar examples in Europe. My take > on the Biafran conflict was that it was an attempt by reactionary elements > tied to South African capital to break up the unitary state of Nigeria. In > my opinion the Gowon government followed a quite remarkable policy of > national reconciliation after defeating the Biafran separtists. No liquidation > policy was followed by federal forces once the insurrection was crushed. > My opinion of this may have been influenced by living in Nigeria at the time. > > Paul Cockshott > > www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L on behalf of Paul Bullock > Sent: Tue 1/2/2007 8:16 PM > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > Paul C. > > The idea that the British Empire 'evaporated' is a misleadingly passive way > of disguising the fact that there were very active anti colonial struggles > going on at all levels especially in the 20 years after 1945... from Kenya > to Malaya to Aden. India was in a state of mutiny by 1947, the situation > was > impossible and the fact that Britain was virtually bankrupted by the war > (losing half of its overeseas investments) placed it is a very overstretched > position, which of course the USA was not unhappy to take advantage of . I > am sure that Indian socialists can explain the detail to you. > > You confuse the imperatives of imperialism with the issues of policy choice. > In > formulating the best way forward out of a diffiicult situation the British > bourgeoisie engaged in intense discussions in its ranks, and different views > are always held. The history and politics of France, Portugal etc were > different and the manner in which the ruling classes there sought to hold on > to their sources of wealth was different. So what? Holding on to and > reestablishing > imperialist power requires reflection, effective strategy and tactics as > well as the absence of conscience. Leaving behind new ruling groups > tied to the ex colonial power with a view to the future, rather than killing > hundreds of > thousands and millions (US in Vietnam, France in Algeria, and Vietnam), or > actually > destroying infrastructure ( eg France in Africa) trying to stop any change > at all, > doesn't aquit the British of imperialism. > > After WW2 banking capital become the critical, central and dynamic feature > of British > foreign operations and for this, working economies and more stable relations > are necessary, not simply direct control over locality. You write of the > period as if you had never heard of neo- colonialism. > > The 'abandonment' of the 'east of suez' role you refer to at the time of > Healey was the result of serious economic payments problems and the > subsequent demands of > the IMF when asked for loans. This even got the Labour Government to > consider abandoning its nuclear armaments policy. It wasn't an issue of > Labour being socialist, or suddenly joining CND!!!! The fact is that with > the > historic achievement of the universal franchise, the bourgeoisie find > themselves having to make concessions to organised voting workers from time > to > time, and so have evolved their party system to adapt to and absorb and > betray > these votes . Part of that system is the Labour party in government. > > The idea that the Labour party suddenly becomes imperialist with Blair is > astonishing. Who sent the troops into Ireland? Who had maintained a system > of no votes for Catholics there until the renewed rebellions of the late > 60's? Who maintained a divided Ireland? Just Blair? What was Wilson doing > in Aden shooting up the Crater District? , and with the game with UDI in > 'Southern Rhodesia' ? > and supporting the near liquidation of the Ibo peoples to hold onto Nigerian > Oil? Your > views sound exactly like the line of the Communist Party of Great Britain > before its inevitable demise. > > > Paul Bullock > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 8:12 PM > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > > > Paul, the fact that the British Empire evaporated between 1945 and 1970 > was in no small part due to the fact that the Labour party was a socialist > party that was simulataneously anti-communist ( of this there is no doubt ) > but also anti-imperialist. Can you seriously deny that granting independence > to India was a progressive measure. It is one that the Atlee government > decided on almost as soon as it came to power, and it was a step that his > conservative opponent Churchill, an rch imperialist, opposed. The Labour > Govt after the war set in trail the process of dismantling the empire, and > were able to do so by virtue of the fact that they did not have the links to > the colonial landholding class in Kenya etc, that the Tories had. > > > Blair is the first Labour prime minister since 45 to be pro-imperialist > and as such constitutes a radical break in this respect with his > predecessors. Note how Healy scotched the plans of the Admiralty to > construct a new generation of Carriers in the 60s, in contrast to this Blair > is going ahead with plans for a new fleet of super-carriers. > > > > When I said that the Labour Party had an alliance with industrial capital > but was opposed to finance capital, I am making a judgement about the > configuration of class forces in the 1940s through to the late 60s. Finance > capital was much weakened by the loss of overseas financial assets, the need > to repay the dollar debt etc. The strict currency control measures of the > Atlee govt were designed to support industrial capital even if they > seriously impeded that traditional operation of British finance capital. The > decisive measure of the Thatcher govt in this respect was the repeal of > these currency and capital export controls. Consider also Wilsons selective > employment tax, an explicit tax on unproductive labour designed to shift > resources into the productive industrial sector. These are policies designed > to benefit industrial rather than finance capital. > > > > The current revival of imperialism in Britain stems from the strengthening > of finance capital subsequent to the removal of the balance of payment > constraint ( North Sea Oil) and the removal of capital movement controls > under Thatcher. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Bullock > > Sent: 01 January 2007 19:15 > > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > > > Dear Claus, > > > > your questions to Paul Cockshott hit the mark!! The idea of an alliance > of > > industrial capitalists and workers against finance capital (directed by > > Kautsky at the German SDP as part of his game to hold back a real fight) > is > > simply to sow illusions about 'progressive' allies amongst the capitalist > > class ( Ford is 'better' than City Bank?). The main problem is the labour > > aristocracy who dispense this sort of nonsense, as Lenin and Che Guevara > > constantly stressed. It is noticeable that in the list of gains made by > > Paul C. the existence of British Imperialism seems to have evaporated, > and > > the gains made by the workers against British capitalism are seen, or > appear > > to be seen, as the result of a joint effort of 'capitalists' AND labour, > > rather than the outcome of a constant class struggle forcing the ruling > > class on the defensive. At present the same British Imperialist state is > > continuing to destroy as many of those gains as possible, and I am sure > that > > the Colonial Labour Governments of the late 1940's were certainly no less > > sympathetic to British Finance capital than those in government to day. > > > > The appeals to any of Keynes nonsense rather than the creation of > > independent working class arguments to shape our demands really is quite > > silly. It reminds me of those publications in the late 60's and early > 1970's > > 'comparing' favourably Marx and Keynes. I find it quite disturbing that > > Keynes whose support for imperialism was never in doubt ( see even his > > school boy positions on Ireland!) should even be in the discussion now > > circumstances no longer permit the use of his ideas in any coherent way by > > the ruling class. > > > > Regards > > > > Paul Bullock > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> > > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 3:59 PM > > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > > > > > > It was progressive in the concrete circumstances of the late 1940s in > that > > it allowed the following > > > > > > 1. A massive increase in working class living standards over a 25 year > > period that had been > > > unmatched in the previous history of capitalism > > > > > > 2. A more rapid development of the productive forces than ever before > > under capitalism > > > > > > 3. Full employment which strengthened the relative position of labour > with > > respect to capital > > > > > > 4. The gradual encroachment of public property over private property in > > the means of production > > > > > > 5. The establishment of a health care system based on the marxist > > principle of from each according to their ability to each according to > their > > need > > > > > > The leadership of the labour movement was socialist but only in the > > British Christian socialist tradition, not the marxian tradition. Its > > achievements were undoubtedly progressive when compared to what proceeded > > it. > > > > > > Paul Cockshott > > > > > > www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: OPE-L on behalf of cmgermer@UFPR.BR > > > Sent: Sun 12/31/2006 1:28 PM > > > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > > > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > > > > > Paul, > > > I would make you one question about the following paragraph of your > post: > > > > > > > > > > > You are obviously quite right about his class position as part of the > > > > liberal bourgeoisie, but he represents the interest of real productive > > > > capital against finance capital and his essays in persuasion in the > 20s > > > > and 30s were an extended polemic against the policies imposed by > finance > > > > capital. As such they laid the grounds for a class alliance between > > > > industrial capital and the labour movement against finance capital > which > > > > came into effect during the war and persisted during the 50s. > Relative > > to > > > > what had gone before this was a progressive step and there is nothing > to > > > > be gained by denying this, but it was obviously not a socialist > economic > > > > program. > > > > > > > > > > according to what criteria, from the point of view of the workers, is an > > > "alliance between industrial capital and the labour movement against > > > finance capital", whose goal is to stabilize the capitalist system when > it > > > is at risk, a progressive step? Was the labour movement in England led > by > > > socialist workers? > > > > > > comradely, > > > Claus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the context in Germany today, as I understand it from talking to > > Helmut > > > > Dunkhase, who I think you know, there is a considerable dominance of > > left > > > > Keynesian thinking in the Links Partei, so I understand your attempt > to > > > > polemicise against Keynes. In the current crisis of the German economy > > it > > > > is my intuition that there are considerable monetary influences so > that > > a > > > > truly radical Keynesian polemic might touch on certain real causes of > > the > > > > recession. For instance, the role of the European Stability Pact and > the > > > > European Central Bank policy are probably aggravating the recession. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the same time any move to a socialist economy based on labour value > > > > would involve a radical change in the monetary system. The challenge > for > > > > us as Marxist economists is to tie in the conjunctural crisis with a > set > > > > of policy measures which when put into practice would both work, and > > > > provide a transition path towards socialism that was more radical than > > the > > > > transition path to state capitalism that was provided in the UK by > > Keynes > > > > in the 1940s. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not read again Lenin's the Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat > > It, > > > > and see if you can come up with transitional measures that would work > in > > > > the German context. You will not make headway against Gysi an > theorists > > > > like Steignitz unless you can propose alternative measures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Dogan Goecmen > > > > Sent: 30 December 2006 21:51 > > > > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > > > > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul, thank you for your comments. Well, that is what I am saying. > > Keynes > > > > wants to criticise classical political economy. But he does not do > that > > > > because he does not really engage with classics. In the article I > > suggest > > > > that Keynes' economic theory is as formal as all other vulgar economic > > > > theories. Classical politial economy, by contrast, is material theory > of > > > > political economy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dogan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In einer eMail vom 30.12.2006 22:36:19 Westeuropäische Normalzeit > > schreibt > > > > wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK: > > > > > > > > This analysis rests at the level of intentionality - what was > > > > Keynes intention, it does not get to the internal structure of > > > > Keynes theory and identify where it is different from neoclassical > > > > or classical political economy. I agree that Keynes was very > > > > sloppy in his treatment of the classicals, but I suspect that he > > > > understood them through Marshall rather than on their own account. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Dogan > > > > Goecmen > > > > Sent: 29 December 2006 15:33 > > > > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > > > > Subject: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A short paper of mine on the relationship of Keynes and Marx. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dogan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dogan Göcmen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes und Marx > > > > > > > > Das Wesen und Verhältnis zweier Theorien > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Der Marxismus ist mit Abstand die einzige Theorie in der > > > > Ideengesichte, die seit ihrer Geburtsstunde zum Gegenstand der > > > > schmutzigsten Behandlungen wurde. Was hat da Marx aus der Taufe > > > > gehoben, dass selbst seine Erzfeinde es nicht mehr lassen können? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Es ist wohl eine Ironie der Geschichte, dass seine Theorie > > > > ausgerechnet in seinem Land der Denker und Dichter, totgeschwiegen > > > > wurde, so dass Marx, seine treue Lebensgefährtin und Engels selbst > > > > zu Feder greifen und Briefe an alle Bekannten, Freunde und an die > > > > Redaktionen der Gazetten schreiben mussten: Der lang ersehnte > > > > erste Band des "Kapital" ist endlich erschienen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Als die Theorie sich ihre eigenen Kanäle schuf und eine > > > > gesellschaftlich materielle Kraft wurde, da half das Totschweigen > > > > nicht mehr. Dieses Mal griffen die Gegner zur Feder, um die > > > > Theorie, die seit etwa 1890er Jahren nach Engels' Prägung des > > > > Begriffs "Marxismus" genannt wird, frontal anzugreifen, gerade als > > > > der Geburthelfer der Theorie sich nicht mehr selber wehren konnte. > > > > Als das auch nicht mehr half, musste man ihre Gegentheorien > > > > entgegenstellen. Dabei war ihnen jedes Mittel recht. Sie > > > > arbeiteten mit ähnlichen, ja oft mit denselben, aber mit Sinn > > > > entleerten und demagogisch bestimmten, Begriffen. Vom Geiste waren > > > > sie aber alle Erzfeinde des Marxismus. Die Webersche > > > > Gesellschaftstheorie und die Heideggersche Philosophie zählen zu > > > > dieser Sorte der Kopfgeburten. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Der Keynesianismus, der ein englisches Produkt ist, ist auch > in > > > > diese Tradition einzuordnen und sein Verhältnis zum Marxismus ist > > > > im Lichte dieser Entwicklung zu sehen. Seinerzeit musste schon der > > > > zynische liberale John Stuart Mill, der zuerst die in England > > > > geboren Idee des Sozialismus, zum Fremdkörper erklärte, musste > > > > unter dem Druck der Straße, ohne seinen eklektisch liberalen Geist > > > > aufzugeben, an Marxismus Zugeständnisse machen. Doch nach der > > > > Oktoberrevolution half all das nicht mehr. Da musste eine > > > > konservative Theorie mit einem linken 'Anschein' erfunden werden. > > > > In der Wirtschaftstheorie entspricht der Keynesianismus diesem > > > > Bedürfnis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes' Programm zur Kritik der klassischen politischen > Ökonomie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes' Hauptwerk ist die Allgemeine Theorie der > Beschäftigung, > > > > des Zinses und des Geldes (Duncker & Humbolt, 1994; Zitate in > > > > Klammern), das er der klassischen politischen Ökonomie > > > > entgegenstellen will. Er will also wie Marx die klassische > > > > politische Ökonomie kritisieren. Insofern ist sein Hauptwerk auch > > > > ein Antiprogramm gegen die Marxsche Kritik. Er gibt das offen zu. > > > > Er schreibt nämlich, dass er "die Theorie von Ricardo - Marx > > > > widerlegen" möchte. (H. Meißner, Bürgerliche Ökonomie ohne > > > > Perspektive, 1976, 124) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Er weitet aber den von Marx geprägten Begriff der klassischen > > > > politischen Ökonomie bis Unkenntlichkeit aus, dass seine > > > > Auseinandersetzung nicht mehr mit den Klassikern, sondern eher mit > > > > ihrer verzerrten Interpretationen stattfindet. Seine Kritik ist > > > > deshalb zugleich eine Zurechtbiegung der Vulgärökonomie. Wer in > > > > diesem Antiprogramm gegen Marxsche Kritik von Keynes aufgezeigt > > > > haben möchte, wo sie geirrt hat, muss enttäuscht werden. In dem > > > > ganzen Buch wird Marx nur drei Mal erwähnt, auf Adam Smith gibt es > > > > einige unbedeutende Hinweise. Nur Ricardo wird am ausführlichsten > > > > diskutiert, die allerdings nicht Diskussion genannt werden kann. > > > > Man darf in diesem Werk auch keine Auseinandersetzung mit > > > > klassischen Begriffen wie Arbeit, Arbeitswertlehre (obwohl er sich > > > > doch mit der Arbeitslosigkeit auseinandersetzen möchte), Ware, > > > > Wert, Mehrwert erwarten. > > > > > > > > Keynes genießt ein gewisses Ansehen, weil er die neoliberale > > > > Wirtschaftspolitik kritisiert. Doch was ihn mit Neoliberalen und > > > > allen anderen Vulgärökonomen verbindet und von den Klassikern > > > > unterscheidet, ist sein formaler Ansatz. Die Klassiker und ebenso > > > > Marx als deren Kritiker bedienen sich einem materiellen Ansatz. > > > > Bei diesem geht es um die Vermittlung zwischen dem Wesen und den > > > > Erscheinungsformen, während bei jenem sich nur um > > > > Erscheinungsformen handelt. Dies erklärt auch, warum er den > > > > klassischen Begriff der Arbeit, wo es um die Vermittlung zwischen > > > > dem Wesen und den Erscheinungsformen der Arbeit geht, durch einen > > > > vorklassischen Begriff, wo es die Arbeit nicht gibt, sondern nur > > > > verschiedene Arbeiten, ersetzen möchte. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes' eigene Ortsbestimmung > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trotz vieler "Linken", die Hoffnungen in Keynes hegen, > bestimmt > > er > > > > seinen Standort klar: "Wie kann ich ein Bekenntnis annehmen [den > > > > Marxismus], das ... das klobige Proletariat über Bürgertum und > > > > Intelligentia emporsteigert, die trotz aller Fehler doch die Werte > > > > des Lebens darstellen und wahrhaftig die Saat aller menschlichen > > > > Vervollkommnung enthalten?" (Meißner, 124) Deshalb sagt er: "Wenn > > > > es als solche zum Klassenkampf kommt, ... der Klassenkrieg wird > > > > mich auf der Seite der gebildeten Bourgeoisie finden". (I. > > > > Mészáros, The Power of Ideology, Zed Books 2005, xi) Diese > > > > Aussagen sprechen für sich. Unverständlich ist nur, warum manche > > > > "Linke" aus einem, der sich offen zum Klassengegner erklärt, > > > > Bündnispartner machen wollen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Das wirtschaftpolitische Ziel des Keynesianismus > > > > > > > > Der Keynesianismus rühmt sich damit, dem Problem der > > > > Arbeitslosigkeit eine Lösung gefunden zu haben. Was ist die > > > > Grundfehler der kapitalistischen Gesellschaft? Keynes: "Die > > > > hervorstechenden Fehler der wirtschaftlichen Gesellschaft, in der > > > > wir leben, sind ihr Versagen, für Vollbeschäftigung Vorkehrung zu > > > > treffen und ihre willkürliche und unbillige Verteilung des > > > > Reichtums und der Einkommen." (314) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wie weit möchte Keynes in der Bekämpfung der "willkürliche[n] > > und > > > > unbillige[n] Verteilung des Reichtums" gehen? Keynes: "Ich selber > > > > glaube, daß bedeutsame Ungleichheiten von Einkommen und Reichtum > > > > gesellschaftlich und psychologisch gerechtfertigt sind, aber nicht > > > > so große Ungleichheiten, wie sie heute bestehen." (315) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes möchte durch eine richtige Analyse die Krankheit > > > > Arbeitslosigkeit heilen. Wie? "Ich sehe keinen Grund anzunehmen, > > > > daß das bestehende System die in Gebrauch befindliche > > > > Erzeugungsfaktoren [er möchte wohl "Produktivkräfte" sagen, - DG] > > > > ernstlich fehlbeschäftigt." (320) Wenn es Arbeitslose gibt, dann > > > > muss man für sie eine Beschäftigung schaffen. Die Existenz der > > > > Arbeitslosigkeit an sich beweist aber nicht, dass die "Richtung > > > > der tatsächlichen Beschäftigung" falsch ist, wie etwa Marx sagen > > > > würde, sondern die "Bestimmung der Menge". (320) Man muss aber für > > > > die Arbeitslosen unbedingt eine Beschäftigung finden. Sonst: "Es > > > > ist sicher, daß die Welt die Arbeitslosigkeit, die, von kurzen > > > > Zeiträumen der Belebung abgesehen - nach meiner Ansicht > > > > unvermeidlich - mit dem heutigen kapitalistischen Individualismus > > > > verbunden ist, nicht viel länger dulden wird." (321) Keynes will > > > > also nicht die Lohnarbeit abschaffen, wie Marx es einfordert, > > > > sondern den "klobigen" Arbeitslosen eine wie auch immer geartete > > > > Beschäftigung geben, sonst bestehe die Gefahr, dass sie sich in > > > > Revolutionäre verwandeln. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes kritisiert die neoliberale Wirtschaftstheorie. Das ist > > > > soweit richtig. Diese Kritik ist aber einzig und allein von der > > > > Sorge getragen, dass dies zum Zusammenbruch des Systems führen > > > > könnte. Er schlägt er eine Wirtschaftspolitik vor, die er"... als > > > > das einzige durchführbare Mittel, [um] die Zerstörung der > > > > bestehenden wirtschaftlichen Formen in ihrer Gesamtheit zu > > > > vermeiden...." (321) Diese Sorge wird heute vom konservativen > > > > Norbert Blüm genauso geteilt wie vom selbsternannten Sozialisten > > > > Gregor Gysi. Blüm sagt: Die Wirtschaftspolitik der Regierung wird > > > > das System zum Zusammenbruch führen. Gysi sag: Die Widersprüche > > > > des Kapitalismus verschärfen sich und auch die Kritik am > > > > Kapitalismus muss schärfer werden. Aber das darf nicht zur > > > > Rechtfertigung der DDR führen und meint damit den Sozialismus. > > > > Also der konservativen Losung folgend alles ändern, damit es beim > > > > Alten bleibt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heinz Jung hat vor mehr als zehn Jahren davor gewarnt, dass > der > > > > Neokeynesianismus als Staatspolitik zur Stabilisierung des Systems > > > > wiederkehren könnte. Die Linke darf also dem Keynesianismus nicht > > > > zur Wiedergeburt verhelfen, sondern muss sein Geist neben > > > > Neoliberalismus auch gegen alle Formen des Keynesianismus > > > > schärfen. Nicht umsonst hat Lenin Keynes als "eingefleischter > > > > Gegner des Bolschewismus" genannt. (LW 31, 207) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 00:00:05 EST