This year’s New Year edition of Der Spiegel features an interesting piece titled, “Was Marx right after all?” Full of astute observations about the state of capitalism, it’s a piece symptomatic of the anxiety of the ruling class.
I’ve been trying to think of a helpful answer all day. Yours is more helpful than anything I came up with.
What would you say is the core aspect, common to Keynesianism whatever the context? Maybe ‘keeping the money flowing even if it means a policy of tax and spend’?
I’ve recently had to read through some Hayek, a staunch critic of progressive taxes. Thatcher based her policies on Hayek, it’s said. In one respect, Hayek was the negation of Keynes. But most if not all the imperial core states will tax and spend to get out of crises and to funnel public money into private hands through ‘austerity’ periods.
This suggests to me that Keynes, as others here have suggested, simply presented one way or saving capitalism from one type of crisis (one where the workers say, ‘Oi, mate, give us some welfare or we’ll do a Bolshevik’). In addition to the fact that Keynesian welfare states only work if said state is exploiting other states. So it can provide libraries and healthcare, but the users have got to close their ears and eyes to the suffering of the global south.
You are right. At the core Keynesianism is about spending to induce demand. This is the macroeconomic aspect but by context I meant there are specialised applications of the theory in areas like monetary and fiscal policies and employment.
Keynesian relates to the work of John Keynes, a British economist. What it means exactly depends on the context.
I’ve been trying to think of a helpful answer all day. Yours is more helpful than anything I came up with.
What would you say is the core aspect, common to Keynesianism whatever the context? Maybe ‘keeping the money flowing even if it means a policy of tax and spend’?
I’ve recently had to read through some Hayek, a staunch critic of progressive taxes. Thatcher based her policies on Hayek, it’s said. In one respect, Hayek was the negation of Keynes. But most if not all the imperial core states will tax and spend to get out of crises and to funnel public money into private hands through ‘austerity’ periods.
This suggests to me that Keynes, as others here have suggested, simply presented one way or saving capitalism from one type of crisis (one where the workers say, ‘Oi, mate, give us some welfare or we’ll do a Bolshevik’). In addition to the fact that Keynesian welfare states only work if said state is exploiting other states. So it can provide libraries and healthcare, but the users have got to close their ears and eyes to the suffering of the global south.
You are right. At the core Keynesianism is about spending to induce demand. This is the macroeconomic aspect but by context I meant there are specialised applications of the theory in areas like monetary and fiscal policies and employment.