Re: [OPE] Two queries, from a friend

> (2) Many years ago I read Paul Mattick's efforts to provide a Marxian response to Keynesianism. Balancing this against Paul Sweezy's neo-Marxian vindication (Monopoly Capital) of Keynesian remedies, I concluded that the debate was a draw. (I think that the early Sweezy of The Theory of Capitalist Development [1942]--a text riddled with errors, by the way, for those acquainted with the relevant mathematics--made a good point, which he subsequently dropped, in arguing that any effective Keynesianism would require tutelage by a working-class state.) Question: Has anybody since Mattick, Marxist or non-Marxist, provided an improvement over Mattick's counter to Keynesianism? <

Whether it is an improvement or not I'll let the anonymous inquirer answer, but Richard Wolff wrote something
recently on this topic:
http://www.rdwolff.com/content/keynesian-revival-marxian-critique

At one point Paolo Giussani wrote on this topic from a kind of pro-Mattick perspective. Some
articles are at http://www.countdownnet.info including "The Limits of the Mixed Economy and
the Accumulation of Capital in Our Times". Many related articles by others can be found at
the same site.

(Silent OPE-L member) Anwar Shaikh has also written on this subject. So, of course, did a
contemporary of Mattick - Ernest Mandel.

In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Jan 27 13:30:17 2011