Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German)

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  

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

-----Original  Message-----
From: OPE-L on behalf of Dogan Goecmen
Sent: Sun 12/31/2006  2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx  (German)


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 
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,  
particular in left wing  movements, mix up  Keynesianism and Marxism. My 
aim was to  clarify this question. As far  as I see you seem to agree with  my
characterisation of these theories.

As such it  admits the  possibility of political intervention being necessary
in  order for the economy  to be regulated.
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 
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