M. C. Howard

Marx and Keynes

The most important intellectual product of the Great Depression was Keynes’s General Theory, which was published in 1936. It was not totally original, nor did it present an entirely consistent and self-contained theoretical system. Many of its ideas had been anticipated by earlier writers (including Keynes himself) and there were, as we shall see, important analytical lacunae. Even the policy prescriptions which the General Theory contained were less novel, and less controversial, than is often supposed. Moreover Keynes never broke decisively with orthodox theories, and incorporated a number of important neoclassical ideas into his own work.1 All the same, the book was the first systematic and comprehensive expression of the view that mass unemployment was the normal outcome of an unregulated capitalist economy to emerge from the pen of a respected and hitherto mainstream economist, and as such its appearance was a major event which Marxian theorists could not ignore.2 Moreover, Keynes’s ideas offered the prospect of a reformed, crisis-free capitalism in which Marxian economics would become an irrelevance, so that there were direct political implications to be faced. The bulk of this chapter is concerned with the ways in which Marxian political economy responded to the Keynesian challenge. We begin, however, by asking the converse question: what did Keynes make of Marx?

The Rise of Neoliberalism in Advanced Capitalist Economies

Introduction PART 1: HISTORICAL MATERIALISM: A THEORY OF ECONOMIC SYSTEMS A General Theory of Economic Systems A Theory of Capitalist Economic Systems PART 2: THEORISTS OF MODERN CAPITALISM ON THE DECLINE OF THE MARKET Marx and the Marxists on the Decline of the Market Neoclassicals, Keynesians and Heterodox Economists on the Decline of the Market PART 3: NEOLIBERALISM AND MODERN CAPITALISM Market Elimination in Modern Capitlism: Where the Theorists were Right The Return of the Market: Where They All Went Wrong PART 4: THE RISE AND DECLINE OF NEOLIBERALISM IN ADVANCED CAPITALISM Why Was Neoliberalism Delayed? What Might Reverse Neoliberalism?

‘State Capitalism’ in the Soviet Union

The aim of this paper is to explore the reactions to the Bolshevik Revolution of one group of critics from the left: those who saw it as ushering in a new form of capitalism. The controversy over state capitalism had both theoretical and practical significance. At the analytical level it presented an important test of Marx’s conception of historical materialism, which had been formulated in a largely successful attempt to explain the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Western Europe but had encountered difficulties when applied to other epochs and other continents. In political terms, the class character of the Soviet Union was a crucial question for those who wished to understand its internal dynamics, the nature of its contradictions and the potential that it offered for revolutionary change. It remained central, even after 1991, to any serious Marxian analysis of post-Mao China, though this is not a topic that we develop at any length here. Our treatment is broadly chronological. We begin by outlining the origins of the state capitalism hypothesis before the October Revolution, and then describe the use of the term by socialist critics of the Bolsheviks between 1917 and 1929. Next we discuss the revival of interest in the idea during the 1930s experience of Stalinism, show how Frankfurt School theorists extended it to denote contemporary developments in Western capitalism, and consider the further evolution of the notion of state capitalism that occurred after 1945. Finally we summarise the arguments, for and against the hypothesis, that emerged from these debates, and conclude by briefly considering the principal deficiencies of the state capitalist hypothesis.

The Rational Choice Marxism of John Roemer: A Critique

Rational choice Marxism originated as a distinct school of thought in the 1970s and has grown rapidly in the 1980s. Its principal characteristic is the deduction of Marxian propositions about socio? economic systems from the rational behaviour of various types of decision-maker. In doing so, the concepts of analytical philosophy, modern psychology, neoclassical economics, and mathematical model building figure prominently. These features allow rational choice Marxism to be seen as a reaction to Althussers structuralism, which dominated the Marxian intelligentsia in the 1960s, and to Sraffian political economy which at the same time sought to incorporate Marxism into a surplus economics founded on structuralist principles. Nevertheless, rational choice Marxists have made no attempt to engage either form of thought directly, nor given any indication that they believe it worthwhile to do so. The main works of rational choice Marxism are Brenner [1976], Cohen [1978], Roemer [1982], Elster [1985] and Przeworski [1985]. They differ not only in the substantive topics considered but also in the commitment to individualistic forms of explanation, the importance attached to rational choices, and the employment of neoclassical methods. Cohen, who has been concerned to reformulate a technologi? cal version of historical materialism, argues only that rationality is a dominant force in human behavior and that in situations of scarcity it will operate in such a way as to develop the forces of production. Important deviations from rational behavior need not be excluded, and Cohen accepts that explanations do not have to be cast in behavioral terms, rational or otherwise; functional explanation can be perfectly legitimate. Rational choice figures more prominently in the different

The New Slump: Marxian Theories of Crisis After 1973

This paper surveys the various accounts offered by Marxian economists for the ending of the long postwar boom. All focus on the decline in profitability, but they offer different expalanations. Three principal categories of crisis theory are distinguished: underconsumption; Marxs ‘Volume III’ falling rate of profit analysis; and several versions of overaccumulation theory, in particular the French regulation school and the North American discussion of the social structure of accumulation. A separate section deals with the relationship between the capitalist state and the crisis. Some general conclusions are drawn concerning the current nature of Marxian economic theory.

Whatever Happened To Imperialism

During the last two centuries the term imperialism appears in a wide variety of usages. Underlying this diversity, however, a common theme is evident. A reference to imperialism has signified processes through which distinct economies have been incorporated into overarching structures of power, thereby enhancing the integration of their disciplinary systems, resulting in their operating as a more coordinated whole. Typically, amalgamations occur on unequal terms involving unidirectional mechanisms of domination and subjugation, and usually imperialism becomes synonymous with the use of extra-economic coercion in international or intercultural relations (as distinct from its exercise in extending political control in circumstances of cultural homogeneity).

Marx, Jones, Rodbertus and the Theory of Absolute Rent

As is well-known, Karl Marx distinguished three types of rent. In addition to two categories of differential rent, closely related to the Ricardian extensive and intensive margins, he argued (against David Ricardo) that rent was paid on the least fertile land. For Marx this so-called “absolute rent†resulted from the barrier posed by landed property to the free movement of capital into agricultural production. Since the organic composition of capital was relatively low in agriculture, the prices of production of farm products were lower than their labor values. The existence of private property in land prevented the reduction of agricultural prices to these prices of production, and allowed the payment of rent even on what could be described, in Ricardian terms, as marginal land. There exists a sizeable literature on Marxs theory of absolute rent,1 but there is no systematic account of its gestation and development. In this paper we explain how Marxs critique of Ricardian rent theory evolved between his first doubts early in 1851 and the articulation of a distinctive alternative analysis in the manuscripts of 1862–63. We also assess the influence exerted on Marx by Richard Jones and Johann Karl Rodbertus, and briefly discuss the significance of Marxs theory of absolute rent for his political economy as a whole.

The economic contributions of Paul Sweezy

This paper offers a critical appraisal of the work of Paul M. Sweezy (1910-2004). After a brief biographical summary, the following sections deal with Sweezys early writings; his book, The Theory of Capitalist Development; his thinking on socialism; his contribution as an historian of events and of ideas; the Monopoly Capital, co-authored with Paul Baran; and Sweezys work after the death of Baran in 1964. The paper concludes with an assessment of Sweezys significance, and a comprehensive bibliography of his writings.

The rise of neo-liberalism in advanced capitalist economies: towards a materialist explanation

The growth of neo-liberalism has been the dominant political force in the past two decades. This volume concentrates on understanding the political economy of neo-liberalism. It focuses on a number of the most critical issues and examines the essence of neo-liberalism, namely, the dominance of the market.

Rational Choice Marxism

Rational choice Marxism originated as a distinct school of thought in the 1970s and grew rapidly during the 1980s. Many Marxists who took no part in its initiation have become ‘converts’, while those who continue to criticise it nevertheless tend to treat it respectfully. The overall approach exhibits three main characteristics. First, rational choice Marxists have shown a concern for rigour and clarity to a degree unusual in Marxian theory. This is why the school is sometimes referred to as ‘analytical Marxism’. Great attention has been paid to the exact meaning of concepts, the process of deduction by which conclusions are derived, and how far these conclusions can sustain traditional Marxian propositions. Thus the claim of historical materialism that the relations of production impede the forces of production has been critically evaluated by asking what it could mean, what meanings are the most sensible, and how far they are actually true. There can be no doubt that in the process much light has been shed on the strengths and weaknesses of the materialist conception of history.1