Are Marx and Keynes Compatible? Pt 7

Last week, I examined the letter Baran sent to Sweezy in 1960 that dealt with the concept of the “economic surplus.” Over the next two weeks, I will examine the letter Sweezy sent to Baran dated September 25, 1962, which deals with monopoly, capitalist stagnation and Keynes.

Sweezy and stagnation

Sweezy described himself as a “stagnationist.” In his mature writings, he came to believe that the “default” condition of monopoly capitalism is a state of “stagnation.” But what exactly did Sweezy mean by “stagnation”? To understand what he meant, we have to understand the traditional marginalism that formed the starting point of Sweezy’s economic studies.

Marginalist, or “neoclassical,” economics claims that a capitalist economy has a strong tendency toward full employment of both the means of production and workers. Remember, the marginalists hold that, assuming there are no unions or social legislation, the capitalist economy will have as its normal condition a situation of full employment of both the means of production and workers.

When Sweezy began his economic studies at Harvard before both the New Deal and the rise of the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations), there was virtually no social legislation or social insurance of any kind in the United States. The union movement was very weak and, outside of mining, in basic large-scale industries was virtually nonexistent.

Therefore, according to marginalist theory the U.S. economy should have been very close to a situation of full employment of both the means of production and the workers. But in the early 1930s as Sweezy was studying economics at Harvard, the U.S. was facing an extreme crisis of mass unemployment. Clearly, there was something very wrong with the economics that Sweezy was learning.

Read more …

Are Marx and Keynes Compatible? Pt 5

Keynesian economists blame their failure on the trade unions

Keynesian economists in general—and some Marxists influenced by them—blame the failure of the Keynesian policies of the 1970s on the trade unions. Basing themselves on Keynes, they falsely blame the inflation of the 1970s not on the inflationary monetary policies of the central banks that were so strongly supported by Keynesian economists at the time but on the trade unions.

These economists claim that by achieving raises in money wages during the inflation, “over-strong” unions were responsible for the inflation of the 1970s. Supposedly, a “wage-price spiral” pushed money wages relentlessly higher forcing the central banks to periodically raise interest rates to prevent even worse inflation, which in turn led to the recessions and unemployment of the 1970s and early 1980s.

However, in reality it was the trade unions that found themselves increasingly on the defensive as both inflation and unemployment rose during the 1970s and into the early 1980s. What the Keynesian economists call the “wage-price spiral” of the 1970s was really a “price-wage spiral.” The unions were only reacting to the ongoing inflation in their attempts to maintain—not entirely successfully—the living standards of their members.

Read more …

Are Marx and Keynes Compatible? Pt 4

The Keynesian revolution in economic policy

Before Keynes, neo-classical marginalist economists believed that capitalism was stable if left to its own devices. These economists held that a capitalist economy tended strongly toward an equilibrium at full employment of both workers and machines. Therefore, if a recession were to occur the response of the authorities should be pretty much confined to having the central bank lower the discount rate. Otherwise, the government should stay out of the way. As long as it did, the marginalists claimed, the capitalist economy would quickly move back to its only possible equilibrium position, “full employment.”

The events that followed World War I, especially the U.S.-centered Great Depression of 1929-1941, discredited this view. Under the influence of Keynes—and more importantly the Depression itself—most of the new generation of (bourgeois) economists believed that it was now the duty of the capitalist government to actively intervene whenever recession threatened.

Bourgeois economics split in two. One branch, purely theoretical, is called “microeconomics.” Microeconomics is simply the old marginalism. The branch that emerged from the Keynesian revolution is called “macroeconomics.”

Macroeconomics tries to explain the movements of the industrial cycle. More importantly, it seeks to arm the capitalist governments and “monetary authorities” with “tools” that will keep the capitalist economy from sinking again into deep depression with the resulting mass unemployment. The new stance of the bourgeois economists was that if the capitalist governments and their monetary authorities use the “tool chest” provided them by macroeconomics correctly, they should be able to maintain “near to full employment with low inflation.”

Full employment was defined by this new generation of (bourgeois) economists not the way workers would define it—everybody who desires a job can quickly find one—but rather as a level of unemployment sufficiently high to keep the wage demands of the workers and their unions in check but low enough to prevent wide-scale unrest that could lead to working-class radicalization and eventually socialist revolution.

Read more …

Are Marx and Keynes Compatible? Pt 3

In the October 2010 edition of Monthly Review, John Bellamy Foster wrote that John Maynard Keynes demonstrated that ”the economy did not automatically [emphasis added—SW] equilibrate at full employment.” (“Notes from the Editors”)

Here Foster does not in any way distinguish his own views from those of Keynes. He seems to assume that Marx as well held the view that while capitalism does not automatically equilibrate at full employment it can be made to do so if the government and the monetary authorities follow policies designed to achieve full employment. This was indeed Keynes’s opinion. But did Marx agree? Is it really possible to achieve full employment under the capitalist system?

Read more …

Are Keynes and Marx Compatible? Pt 2

John Bellamy Foster’s Case for Keynes

I explained in last month’s reply that John Maynard Keynes is the leading economist of non-Marxist progressives. Marxists themselves are sharply divided on the nature and usefulness of Keynes’s work and its relationship to Marxism.

As a rule, Marxists who support the Grossman-Mattick school or other schools that blame capitalist crises on the periodic inability of the capitalists to produce sufficient surplus value to maintain capitalist prosperity are quite hostile to Keynes’s work. According to these schools, the only way out of a capitalist crisis within the limits of the capitalist system is to increase the rate of surplus value―the rate of exploitation of the workers―and thus restore an “adequate” rate of profit for the capitalists.

Any attempts by a government inspired by Keynes’s theories to restore the purchasing power of the people during a capitalist crisis only makes it more difficult for the capitalists to restore an adequate production of surplus value. Therefore, the “not enough production of surplus value” schools of Marxist crisis theory hold that Keynesian policies only make a capitalist crisis worse. By spreading dangerous reformist illusions about the possibility of improving the condition of the working class and its allies within the capitalist system, these schools of Marxists claim the “Keynesian Marxist” tendencies such as the Monthly Review School build support for opportunist reformist tendencies within the workers’ movement.

Read more …

A New Gold Standard?

A reader asks, what is the significance of the reported moves by the central banks of China, India, Russia and perhaps other countries to increase their gold reserves? Why are China, India and Russia moving to increase the percentage of their reserves held in gold as opposed to foreign currencies such the dollar and euro? Could the moves of these countries to increase their gold reserves point to a possible revival of the international gold standard in some form?

The answer to the first question is that these countries are nervous about the future of all paper currencies. During the first phase of the crisis of 2007-09, the dollar fell not only against gold but also against the euro. Naturally, countries increased the percentage of euros in their reserves, since it seemed like a good bet against the falling dollar.

Then came the sovereign debt crisis in Europe that assumed acute form just a month or so ago. The euro plunged against the dollar. But the dollar is not looking too good itself. While the dollar was soaring against the euro, it was slipping against gold, the money commodity. For the first time, the dollar price of gold inched above $1,200. Unlike paper currencies, gold is a commodity. And like all commodities, its value is determined by the amount of labor socially necessary to produce it under the prevailing conditions of production.

With the world’s gold mines facing growing depletion, the value of gold for the foreseeable future seems a little more certain than the future value of any paper currency, whether the dollar, euro or yen. No matter how bad things get, gold cannot be “run off the printing presses.” New gold can be produced and the existing supply increased only by the slow process of the labor of workers in the gold mines and in the gold refining industry.

Does this mean that the international gold standard is about to be restored? The answer for the immediate future is a definite no. The three countries that are reportedly moving to increase their gold reserves are not imperialist countries. Indeed, these countries have few gold reserves. The great bulk of the gold that is held by governments or central banks is held by the governments of the United States and the European satellite imperialist countries such as Germany, France and Italy.

Read more …

The Greek Workers Show the Way

A reader wants to know how the crisis that has developed in European and world financial markets will affect the current economic and political situation.

In the first week of May, renewed panic hit world financial markets. This time the crisis was centered in Europe and the European government debt market. The immediate cause of the crisis was the fear that the government of Greece would not be able to meet payments on its bonds that were coming due later in the month.

The resulting panic drove the interest rate on Greek government bonds well into the double digits, while stock markets plunged around the world. The crisis began to spread from the bonds of Greece to the bonds of other weaker European powers such as Portugal, Spain and Ireland.

Both Washington and the European governments fear that a major new contraction in credit could set in that would end the weak economic recovery that has been visible since the middle of last year, and renew the worldwide economic downturn—perhaps transforming the “Great Recession” into Great Depression II.

After a round of frantic emergency meetings over the weekend of May 8-9, the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the U.S. Federal Reserve announced a round of emergency measures to raise almost a trillion dollars aimed at propping up the global credit system and bailing out the holders of Greek government debt—not the Greek people—while preventing the collapse of the euro.

The situation was so grave that French President Nicolas Sarkozy canceled a scheduled visit to Moscow to celebrate the surrender 65 years ago of Nazi Germany. During the frantic meetings, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble collapsed and had to be hospitalized.

Read more …

Financialization and Marx — Pt 3. Class and Financialization

This is the concluding part of my reply to a question from a friend who wanted to know my opinion of a paper by Dick Bryan, Randy Martin and Mike Rafferty entitled “Financialization and Marx, Giving Labor and Capital a Financial Makeover,” published in the 2009 Review of Radical Political Economics.

“Households,” Bryan, Martin and Rafferty write, “live the contradiction of being both capitalist and non-capitalist at the same time. Economically, the household not only consumes commodities and reproduces labor power, it also engages finance, particularly through its exposure to credit, the demands of financial calculation, and requirements of self-funding non-wage work in old age.”

Bryan, Martin and Rafferty point to the enormous growth of consumer credit. An increasing number of people in the imperialist countries are being exploited not only as wage and salaried workers but as debtors. This is part of the phenomena called “financialization” that Bryan, Martin and Rafferty are trying to come to grips with. How does “financialization” affect class and relations among the classes?

However, Bryan, Martin and Rafferty appear to be confused, perhaps by their exposure to marginalist notions, about who is and who is not a capitalist. Without a clear understanding of what we mean by “capitalist” we cannot even begin properly to analyze class and class relationships.

To begin with, I don’t like how they use the term “households.” Bourgeois economists such as Keynes, for example, like to use the term “households” to hide class. There is a world of difference between a capitalist “household,” which lives off the profit obtained through its ownership of capital, and a working-class “household,” which lives off the income obtained from selling the labor power of one or more members of the “household” for wages.

Read more …

Paul Volcker’s Banking Reform Proposals and Socialist Revolution

A reader wants to know what I think is behind Paul Volcker’s banking reform proposals.

Paul Volcker (1927- )—yes, the same Paul Volcker who was the chief architect of the “Volcker Shock” a generation ago, and a long-time Democrat—is currently head of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. On January 21, Obama with Volcker at his side proposed a series of reforms that Obama dubbed the “Volcker Rule.”

Volcker’s proposed new regulations would ban commercial banks from owning or investing in hedge funds and private equity firms. Essentially, Volcker’s proposed rule would ban, or at least limit, any firm engaged in commercial banking from owning and trading stocks, corporate bonds, commodities and derivatives for its own account.

Unlike his predecessor, Republican Alan Greenpan (1926- ), Volcker is highly dubious about so-called “financial innovation.” He has remarked that “the only useful banking innovation was the invention of the ATM.”

In August 1979, then U.S. Democratic President Jimmy Carter appointed Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board—the government body that controls the U.S. Federal Reserve System. Volcker reversed the Keynesian policy of attempting to keep interest rates low by increasing the rate of growth in the quantity of token money that the Fed creates. Instead, he allowed interest rates to increase to a level never seen before—or since.

For example, at one point under Volcker, the federal funds rates—the rate of interest that commercial banks pay on overnight loans they make to one another—hit 20 percent, a far cry from the Fed’s current federal funds target of between 0 and 0.25 percent! These unprecedentedly high interest rates sent the U.S. economy into a tailspin pushing even the official unemployment figures into the double digits for the first time since the end of the 1930s Depression.

But the high interest rates—known as the “Volcker Shock”—did halt the depreciation against gold of the U.S. dollar and the other paper currencies linked to it under the dollar system, bringing the 1970s “stagflation” to an end.

The Volcker Shock marked the transition from the reformist “Keynesian” era of making concessions to the working class and to the oppressed countries to the period of “neo-liberalism” with its rising imperialist exploitation of the oppressed countries combined with the global offensive by the ruling capitalist class against the world working class aimed at raising the rate of surplus value. The abnormally high interest rates, which lingered for many years after the Volcker Shock, also witnessed the emergence of the phenomena now called “financialization.” I plan to examine financialization in a future reply.

Read more …

The Monthly Review School

One of our readers wants to know what is my opinion of the “Monthly Review School.” Before reading this reply, I strongly urge readers to read my reply on the “transformation problem” if you have not already done so. This reply depends in part on the arguments developed in that reply.

The Monthly Review School is a tendency in U.S. Marxism centered on the monthly socialist magazine Monthly Review, which has been published since 1949. Though it has never been organized in the form of a political party, it is held together by certain common ideas in both economics and politics.

The book “Monopoly Capital,” published in 1966 and co-authored by the Marxist economists Paul Sweezy (1910-2004) and Paul Baran (1910-1964), is considered by its members to be the leading work produced by the school. The central figure of the tendency was the remarkable Harvard-trained U.S. economist Paul Sweezy.

In addition to Paul Sweezy, the most important figures in the Monthly Review School included Paul Baran, who like Sweezy was a professional economist and author of the “Political Economy of Growth” (1955); Leo Huberman (1903-1968), a talented popularizer of Marxist ideas; Harry Braverman (1920-1976), who was an industrial worker and trade unionist before joining Monthly Review and whose main work is “Labor and Monopoly Capital”; and economist Harry Magdoff (1913-2006), author of the “Age of Imperialism” (1969) among other works.

The current editor of Monthly Review, is John Bellamy Foster (1953- ), a professor of sociology at the University of Oregon. He can be considered the school’s current leader. He is very knowledgeable in economics, and has written much about Marx’s views on ecology and agriculture.

The Monthly Review School bears the marks of the society that produced it, that of the United States. The United States not only had by far the highest degree of capitalist development in the last century. It was—and is—the center of world imperialism. Along with Great Britain, the United States by the beginning of the current century had become the leading example of the decay of capitalism in the imperialist countries.

Read more …