But Liberal Socialism, as Crotty sees it, may remain a little idealistic. He boldly claims, ‘Keynes envisaged and espoused a particular form of socialism’ and ‘it is clear, explicit and unambiguous; he used the term socialism to characterise his own views’ (1999, pp. Keynes' work found popularity in developed liberal economies following the Great Depression and World War II, ... acted as a middle-way for many developed liberal capitalist economies to appease the working class in lieu of a socialist revolution. Why, if the government is run by the “good people,” it will function efficiently and in society’s best interests. We have no clear idea laid up in our minds beforehand of exactly what we want. Instead, what Keynes believed was that there were certain times that the government would need to … Sure, and if wishes were fishes, we’d all cast nets in the sea. Keynes’s often-quoted observation that “in the long run we are all dead” is almost always read out of context to imply that Keynes was entirely focused on the resolution of short-run monetary and macroeconomic glitches.9 In fact, Keynes was deeply interested in the long run; not, however, in static long-run equilibrium, but in the long-run secular trajectory of late capitalism. Keynes was aware of how market-driven structural change can disrupt a community’s social bonds. Without hesitation, he said, “as the truth”!. Keynes lived during a time when communism and socialism were considered real, viable alternatives to capitalism. Nevertheless his economics have profound implications for Socialists. By implicitly endorsing Keynes’s doctrines that Mongiovi describes in the subheading of his article as “indeed more radical than commonly thought” and of “considerable relevance for the Left today”, they are repositioning themselves as Brooklyn hipster versions of Dissent magazine. The “contradictions” associated with the industrial phase, in particular the need to find new markets for goods produced by ever more productive methods, and the need to secure access to raw materials, led to the imperialist phase.17 Keynes, too, saw capitalism as a system that moves through various historical phases. But beyond this no obvious case is made out for a system of State Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community. The latest issue of Catalyst, a journal that is published by Bhaskar Sunkara and edited by Vivek Chibber, has an article by economics professor Gary Mongiovi titled “Was Keynes a Socialist?” It is a gushing review of “Keynes Against Capitalism: His Economic Case for Liberal Socialism”, a new book by James Crotty. Based on a very close reading of Keynes’ work, Crotty argues that core Keynesian economic ideas should … Keynes had no great affection for the working class either. Keynes was highly antipathetic toward Marx. At such places, Hyman Minsky is taken in large doses and a smidgen of Karl Marx is thrown in just to add some spice to the stew. In his special introduction to the German edition, Keynes recognized how “thirsty” the Germans must be for his “general theory,” which would also apply to “national socialism.”, (From “Bastard Keynesianism: The Evolution of Economic Thinking and Policymaking Since WWII”). Keynes’ deviate socialist circle was almost completely pro-bolshevik. Economics portal. He wanted people to recognize that we don’t have to settle for what the invisible hand bestows upon us, because we have considerably more latitude in guiding and constraining market forces than conventional economic wisdom alleges to be the case. Both of them were members of the Fabian Society, a reformist gathering of intellectuals that was sort of the equivalent of the Jacobin editorial board in the 1930s. Opinion polls indicate rising dissatisfaction with capitalism and growing awareness of its many dysfunctions. John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes CB ... and that such policies would lead toward socialism. by michael roberts. “He was not mainly preoccupied with taming the business cycle: his ultimate objective was to bring about a radical transformation of our economic system.” So, what does such a radical transformation entail? “The republic of my imagination lies on the extreme left of celestial space.” — John Maynard Keynes1, “For my part I think that capitalism, wisely managed, can probably be made more efficient for attaining economic ends than any alternative system yet in sight, but that in itself is in many ways extremely objectionable. The material in this bulletin has been taken, with minor changes, from articles which originally appeared in the Socialist Standard during the past five years. Monetary policy, even highly aggressive monetary stimulus, will therefore be powerless to jump-start growth: public investment on a large scale is needed. He was a strong advocate of capital controls to prevent finance capital from fleeing a country in pursuit of higher returns when the monetary authorities push interest rates down. Keep in mind that admiration for Stalin’s ruthlessness was widespread among the intellectual elite in the 1930s. In The General Theory, Keynes famously observed that investment decisions largely, depend on spontaneous optimism rather than on a mathematical expectation … Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as a result of animal spirits — of a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities … Thus if the animal spirits are dimmed and the spontaneous optimism falters … enterprise will fade and die.25. And who was to run this corporate capitalist/socialist state? The man generally credited with having “saved capitalism” is the English economist John Maynard Keynes whose main work appeared in i936, Writing in the middle of the great slump of that period, he could see that Say’s Law, as the dogma that total market demand would always be equal to existing productive capacity, was wrong. This definitely was not a short-term government stimulus program designed to ‘kick-start’ a temporarily sluggish economy and then let free enterprise take over.”22 One significant achievement of Crotty’s book is its demonstration beyond a doubt that Keynes’s overarching objective was to make a case for a program of national economic planning. The answer comes in the line: “Keynes never believed in the power of ordinary working people to control their own fate.” It’s hard to imagine anybody being a socialist if they don’t come to grips with the principles laid out in a pamphlet like “Their Morals & Ours”. Managed trade, rather than protectionism, would be a more effective strategy. Whether the program that Keynes describes properly falls under the heading of socialism is a quibbling matter. IV.3, p.323-338). Despite their disavowal of revolutionary politics, they absolutely doted on Joseph Stalin, whose show trials and mass executions Shaw defended: But the top of the ladder is a very trying place for old revolutionists who have had no administrative experience, who have had no financial experience, who have been trained as penniless hunted fugitives with Karl Marx on the brain and not as statesmen. Even a thousand page book would not exhaust Keynes’ Fabian trail. Change ), You are commenting using your Google account. More recently, Northwestern University economist Robert J. Gordon has argued that the pace of innovation is slowing and that there are no transformative “Great Inventions” left to be discovered that might sustain robust employment for decades and substantially raise labor productivity, the two essential conditions for permanent across-the-board improvements in living standards.12 Keynes anticipated these arguments: “there seems at the moment a lull in new inventions,” he observed in 1931.13 He didn’t think the problem could be left alone for the market to rectify; for the market will not, as a matter of course, spontaneously generate a cluster of epoch-making innovations that will keep the economy running at a healthy clip for two or more generations. Don’t be under any illusion that Keynes was a radical supporter of labour or that he sided with the workers or had any sympathy for Marxist or socialist ideas. Be that as it may, Crotty, without explicitly making the point, enables us to see that Keynes was an instinctive dialectician. Such innovations open up new areas of investment and lay the groundwork for the discovery of additional applications that in turn create yet more opportunities for innovation and investment. Marxism portal. During that so-called postwar Golden Age, unemployment was low, productivity growth and profitability were high, and real wages grew in step with productivity; business investment was robust, and the economy grew at a healthy clip. Along with his colleague Sam Bowles, he is one of the few radical heterodox economists to gain tenure at a leading American university. For in developing his case, Crotty shows us how a penetrating, vigorous, and humane intellect tackled questions that have a crucial bearing on debates we are still having about what our socioeconomic institutions ought to do for us and what they ought to look like. No 4 In sharp contrast to the traditional interpretation, Rod O’Donnell argues Keynes was a socialist. The premise depicted by this imagery will strike many as incongruous with the received understanding of Keynes’s polemical aims. Leave no doubt that Keynes was much more a socialist than the typical interpretation would lead on to believe. Why not figure out how to smash the fucking state that will continue to kill us, if it remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie? Keynes was an English economist, who came to prominence for his writings on the turbulent inter-war period. Keynes lived during a time when communism and socialism were considered real, viable alternatives to capitalism. Crotty describes at considerable length Keynes’s proposal to expand public control over investment. The planning he proposed was more modest. Comment by Michael D Yates — May 27, 2020 @ 8:25 pm, RSS feed for comments on this post. Crotty might have subjected Keynes’s arguments to some critical scrutiny. (Read parts one and two) Hayek, credit and the crisis. See David M. Kotz, Terrence McDonough, and Michael Reich (eds). See John Maynard Keynes, “A Short View of Russia,” in, This aspect of Keynes’s theoretical framework was developed by Hyman Minsky in, Many of these outstanding German-speaking economists were forced to emigrate when Hitler came to power; they went on to form the backbone of the New School’s University in Exile. For him, Marxism was to be condemned for “exalting the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who are the quality in life and carry the seeds of all human advancement.” James Crotty was at UMass-Amherst for many years. With the collapse of economic liberalism as a policy which promised to ensure a crisis free, harmonious and self-adjusting market, governments are increasingly returning to the economic ideas of Keynes. The gap between the economy’s output and the level of spending on that output by households expands. In a 1939 interview in the New Statesman and Nation, Keynes described the economic order he envisioned as “liberal socialism, by which [he meant] a system where we can act as an organised community for common purposes and to promote social and economic justice, whilst respecting and protecting the individual — his freedom of choice, his faith, his mind and its expression, his enterprise … His biggest problem with the idea was the fact, which he explores in his writings, that he really did not much like the working class and looked down on them as “inferior”. Along with his colleague Sam Bowles, he is one of the few radical heterodox economists to gain tenure at a leading American university. His distaste for Marx appears to have been an aesthetic reaction rather than ideological or scientific in nature; I suspect that Keynes was allergic to Marx’s dense Teutonic prose. Keynes: socialist, liberal or conservative? We also find in Keynes’s argument faint echoes of an element of Karl Marx’s falling-rate-of-profit hypothesis. But in recent years, politicians have used it even during the expansionary phase. Critiques of capitalism. In the absence of transformative innovations that create new markets and call forth high levels of investment, including infrastructure investment, over long stretches of time, capitalism will lapse into a condition that economists call secular stagnation. Keynes showed that if Capitalism is to be successful, it has to be managed: the “market”, if left to its own devices will breed great depressions and widespread impoverization. Frankly, it matters little to me whether you want to call Keynes a liberal or a socialist. This makes complete sense because capitalism is inherently monopolistic. Given all the projects I have taken on, it would not be worth my time or that of my readers. Keynes is one of the most important and influential economists who ever lived. This inter… This, of course, will sound familiar to anyone paying attention to political and economic affairs in the Western Hemisphere in 2020. Again in February 1918, Keynes admitted to “being a Bolshevik.”6 The famous journalist Clarence W. Barron, founder of Barron’s magazine, met Keynes in 1918 and recorded: “Lady Cunard says Keynes is a kind of socialist and my judgment is that he is a Socialist … We no longer have sufficient confidence in the future to be satisfied with the present.15. He understood, sensibly, that muddling through is an unavoidable aspect of all human activity. The looming dire threat of climate change has prompted calls for a Green New Deal.36 The realization of such a project would require the adoption of an ambitious and optimistic political vision like the one Keynes put forward. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Keynes was not a Socialist. 5 June 2019 — Michael Roberts. He pushed for such a board again in the early 1930s when he served on the famous Macmillan Committee to formulate a response to the problems confronting the British economy. The collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement made exchange-rate uncertainty and balance-of-payments crises once again potent sources of economic instability. Its dreary, out-of-date, academic controversialising seems so extraordinarily unsuitable as material for the purpose.”. The idea was that a mechanism needed to be put in place to provide a permanent stimulus to the economy. Whether Keynes was a socialist, and precisely what sort of socialist he was if he was one, are trickier questions. How can such a state be made a tribune of the people? IX, pp.295-306. Society, Keynes believed, could and must take “intelligent control of its own affairs,” and this requires a reconfiguration of our economic institutions in the light of capitalism’s structural evolution since the nineteenth century.8 /a> Crotty lays out that vision in rich and comprehensive detail. Interesting that Keynes would confide in Shaw. This terrain has been explored before. Keynes categorically rejected all general rules, but how does this relate to his political vision? As the economy’s capital stock increases, opportunities for profitable investment become scarcer, and profitability declines. In other words, Keynes wanted to turn the wheel of history … And he is nowhere close to Kalecki in terms of radical insight. MARX VERSUS KEYNES. That being said, Keynes never believed in the power of ordinary working people to control their own fate. His father was a Cambridge economist and he had Alfred Marshall tutor Keynes, who had not studied economics. But investment spending depends on business expectations of future consumption demand; if the share of consumption spending in aggregate income is shrinking, private-sector enterprises are unlikely to anticipate levels of future demand adequate to stimulate a sufficiently high level of investment. Apparently, Crotty’s book is a corrective to this false characterization. According to Paul Krugman, “Keynes was no socialist — he came to save capitalism, not to bury it.” When Keynes wrote The General Theory, there was literally mass unemployment, so … According to Keynes’ biographer, Robert Skidelsky, it would be “an interconnected elite of business managers, bankers, civil servants, economists and scientists, all trained at Oxford and Cambridge and imbued with a public service ethic, would come to run these organs of state, whether private or public, and make them hum to the same tune.”. That is to say, Keynes from the start understood capitalism to be a system that undergoes structural change over time and operates differently in different phases of its history. Keynes showed that if Capitalism is to be successful, it has to be managed: the “market”, if left to its own devices will breed great depressions and widespread impoverization. However, this simply isn’t so. All the while, organized labor was strong enough to ensure that workers shared in the benefits of growth. It is almost universally believed that Keynes wrote his magnum opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,to save capitalism from the socialist, communist, and fascist forces that were rising up during the Great Depression era.This book argues that this was not the case with respect to socialism. Probably sent to the press before the pandemic kicked in, it smacks of the Fabian habits of the social democratic left and light-years away from our grim pandemic and economic free-fall realities. I know that it is historically important and I know that many people, not all of whom are idiots, find it a sort of Rock of Ages and containing inspiration. Keynes was averse to class conflict: he was no class warrior; his aim was to diffuse class tensions. Military Keynesianism kept industrial demand high, not only in the arms sector, but also in the subsidiary industries that supplied that sector with materials and parts. In some respects, this may have applied to Keynes, who was certainly aware of the tremendous economic miracle of Adolf Hitler in reducing unemployment from over 30 percent when he took office in 1933 to 1 percent by 1936, the year in which the German edition of the General Theory appeared. Younger people in particular are increasingly likely to view “socialism” as a viable and appealing alternative to the profit-driven market system that dominates our economic, political, and social institutions. Of course, it can sometimes be difficult to come to such a decision when the data itself is in transition, like Cuba in 1960 or Yugoslavia in Tito’s early years. It must be (in Keynes’s words) sufficiently and consistently impoverishing.” Liberalism or Barbarism. After making the case that Keynes, like Marx, saw capitalist crisis as rooted in its own contradictions, Mongiovi—speaking for Crotty—refers to the measures Keynes saw as moving toward socialism: Since the effective demand problem was fundamentally structural, Keynes advocated a structural solution: a permanent expansion of the state. This question had already occupied continental scholars for some time and was the focus of lively discussion at the London School of Economics. Was Keynes a socialist? “[T]here is,” he noted, “an enormous field of private enterprise which no one but a lunatic would seek to nationalize.”30 He was not opposed to large-scale enterprises — he knew, as any competent economist does, that economies of scale confer benefits on society, and that large enterprises are here to stay; but they need to be intelligently controlled, managed, and regulated. Keynes had a notoriously restless intellect; he was an extreme case of Isaiah Berlin’s fox who knows many things.7 He whipped up more ideas before lunch than most of us have in a lifetime. In Keynes Against Capitalism, Crotty argues that the conventional view is all wrong. A common argument adduced against socialism is that the removal of the profit motive blunts the incentive to take the kinds of risks that lead to innovation and growth. Against the criticism that placing investment spending under the control of the state will cripple an economy’s capacity to innovate, we may call attention to the groundbreaking work of Mariana Mazzucato, which shows that since the end of World War II, government has been a major source of innovation in numerous fields, and, indeed, that without the direct and indirect involvement of the state, many key innovations of the past half century — the internet, personal computers and the software they use, information technology and communications, solar and wind power, countless medical advances — would never have materialized or would have been delayed for decades.27 Keynes, as we have noted, had a great deal of confidence in the ability of technocrats to manage “the socialisation of investment,” but he says little about innovation, or about how it might be fostered through his proposed Board of National Investment. Keynes lived during a time when communism and socialism were considered real, viable alternatives to capitalism. To effect meaningful social change, we need to be open to every thoughtful perspective. By contrast, Rod O’Donnell argues Keynes was a socialist. He pushed for such a board again in the early 1930s when he served on the famous Macmillan Committee to formulate a response to the problems confronting the British economy. The central institution Keynes envisioned for this function was a Board of National Investment, an idea he first put forward in the late 1920s when he helped to draft a Liberal Party report on Britain’s Industrial Future. After all, you don’t want to go too far with the Marxism stuff in light of Keynes’s take, which is cited by Mongiovi: Keynes was highly antipathetic toward Marx. ( Log Out / Harry had no use for Crotty, at least his economics. In the early 1970s, the Golden Age (which, let us note, conferred most of its blessings on white males and their families) was subjected to a variety of structural and political pressures that gradually eroded its viability. There’s a cognitive dissonance in the latest Catalyst. Change ). It would be a shame if Sunkara and Chibber continue traveling down this road but we can compensate for this by getting our shit together as we used to put it in the 1960s. “The political problem of mankind,” he wrote, “is to combine three things: efficiency, social justice, and individual liberty.”35 Modern society is deficient in all three respects. Indeed, Michael Roberts pointedly refers to Crotty’s admission that “Keynes was unabashedly corporatist.”. As aggregate income increases, society tends to save a larger proportion of its income. He was critical of the sloppy application of orthodox ideas to complex real-world circumstances, but he was no renegade. I am prepared to entertain an affirmative answer to the question “Was Keynes a socialist?” But the significance of Crotty’s book lies not so much in his affirmative conclusion as in the arguments that he marshals in support of it. His purpose in writing his 1936 masterwork The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money was to understand why slumps occur, and to identify remedies to contain their destructive force. A favorite pastime of some libertarian intellectuals is to tar Keynes with the socialist label and then feather him with misleading insinuations that he approved of Stalinism, National Socialism, and Italian Fascism. He devised his theories as an alternative to socialism – a … Social democrats seek to implement an economic strategy shaped by the thoughts of John Maynard Keynes. Because the skills and physical facilities necessary to a particular line of production tend to concentrate in a particular geographical region — a phenomenon that generates substantial efficiency gains for all of the linked enterprises — the contraction of an industry or the closing of a large plant means that a lot of resources become redundant, and those resources are not easily transferable to other lines of productive activity. He characterized Das Kapital as “an obsolete economic textbook which [is] not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world.” To George Bernard Shaw he wrote in 1934: “My feelings about Das Kapital are the same as my feelings about the Koran. Like the rest of the Fabians, he saw socialism as a project to be carried out by a modern version of Plato’s philosopher-kings who would administer a mixed-economy state. Robert Skidelsky writes, “Keynes was a lifelong liberal” and “He was not a socialist” (2009, 135, 157; 1992, 233; 2000, 478).4 Contrary to Skidelsky, important Keynes scholars have aligned him with socialism.5For example, Rod O’Donnell writ… There is no remedy for that by unregulated private action.”18 The traumatizing impact of structural change on the people caught up in it could be avoided only through some plan of centralized coordination. A few high points will serve to dramatize the depth and extent of Keynes Fabian immersion. Its dreary, out-of-date, academic controversialising seems so extraordinarily unsuitable as material for the purpose.”20 In a 1933 draft of The General Theory, he acknowledged that Marx usefully called attention to the fact that if firms are unable to realize their profits by selling what they have produced, the circuit of production will be interrupted. However, this simply isn’t so. A number of important themes emerge in the telling. While unfettered trade undoubtedly inflicts considerable harm on large numbers of workers, protectionism and economic insularity also have undesirable consequences that Crotty ought to have addressed. Rod O’Donnell has already made a persuasive case that Keynes was a socialist in his philosophical outlook, his political orientation, and his economics. He characterized Das Kapital as “an obsolete economic textbook which [is] not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world.”19 To George Bernard Shaw he wrote in 1934: “My feelings about Das Kapital are the same as my feelings about the Koran. He was a lifelong member of the British Liberal Party, which held few seats in Parliament after 1920. Socialism’s Biggest Hero Is a Bourgeois British Capitalist John Maynard Keynes felt little solidarity for workers and inspired a century of establishment economics. Both Fascist and Keynes were looking for a third way between socialist and the failing free markets and the fascist found one way, right wing populism and nationalism that put industry at the service of the state, but Keynes found another which used the government to stabilize the markets. While Keynes did believe that government interference in the economy was necessary, he did not believe that the government should own the means of production. It is beyond the scope of this article to offer a critique of John Maynard Keynes or James Crotty’s new book. He liked to be provocative. 10. The failure of government-controlled capitalism _____ Introduction. We may detect, in all of this, tropes that have become part of the discourse on the crisis of capitalism. It is the same problem the DSA elites have today. These heroes of mine are so unlike the the DSA dreck in New York City today. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected. Crotty marshals all of the available evidence and sets it out in an exceedingly clear way. Influenced by Paul Sweezey and a frequent contributor to MR, he argued that FDR’s Keynesianism and Nazi economics had something in common, namely strong state intervention, especially using a military build-up to offset the Great Depression: Some wag has defined an economist as someone who has seen something work in practice and then proceeds to make it work in theory. In the early twentieth century, he believed, it had entered a phase in which private enterprise could no longer reliably generate full employment, rising living standards, or socially useful investment. By 1929 Keynes’ teachings had became hardened into a full Fabian Socialist doctrine. That’s fine except that it has a tendency to result in a world of haves and have nots. John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes CB FBA (/ k eɪ n z / KAYNZ; 5 June 1883 – 21 April 1946), was a British economist, whose ideas fundamentally changed the theory and practice of macroeconomics and the economic policies of governments. Only socialism can provide a positive way out of the present crisis. I am even more of a Keynesian now, after reading this wonderful book. Nick Johnson. But Keynes felt that the risk in Britain was remote. by michael roberts. The system of planning that he had in mind would not, and indeed must not, hobble “the constructive energy of the individual mind, [or hamper] the liberty and independence of the private person.”31, Crotty gives the impression, perhaps inadvertently, that Keynes was an isolated voice. Among the left professorate, post-Keynesianism is a way of being on the left but not too far left. Again in February 1918, Keynes admitted to “being a Bolshevik.”6 The famous journalist Clarence W. Barron, founder of Barron’s magazine, met Keynes in 1918 and recorded: “Lady Cunard says Keynes is a kind of socialist and my judgment is that he is a Socialist of the type that does not believe in the family.”7 Socialism comprises those tendencies, forces, and institutions that blunt, mitigate or adapt market relations to social goals. Some, like Michael Zweig stayed true to a radical vision. Keynes’s outlook also anticipates elements of the Social Structures of Accumulation approach, a body of macroeconomic analysis grounded in Marxian theory. The original typescript of the original speech contains a passage on the Labour Party which was omitted in the printed version. Keynes is one of the most important and influential economists who ever lived. Vol 3 Crotty’s book suggests that turning this situation around must begin with the rediscovery of Keynes’s vision — his actual analytical vision, not the parody of it that has been handed down to us by the guardians of orthodoxy. Keynes argued that investment, which responds to variations in the interest rate and to expectations about the future, is the dynamic factor determining the level of economic activity. The GI Bill enabled returning veterans to buy homes and to get college degrees that enhanced both their earning power and the productivity of the US economy. He cites Lawrence Klein, an early champion of Keynesian economics and a future Nobel laureate: “Marx analyzed the reasons why the capitalist system did not and could not function properly, while Keynes analyzed the reasons why the capitalist system did not but could function properly. Crotty, as thorough as he is, doesn’t have much to say on the topic either. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic reward of those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary.23, But a program that proposes to regulate the level of investment on a large scale cannot help but also influence the direction of investment. In the postwar Social Structure of Accumulation, the process of capital accumulation was sustained by Keynesian demand-management policies, military Keynesianism, and an accommodation between business and organized labor to keep wages more or less in line with productivity growth. Indeed, Keynes viewed himself as a more radical socialist than MacDonald and Hugh Dalton, another 1917 Club member. Crotty marshals all of the available evidence and sets it out in an exceedingly clear way. An old URPEer, he was in grad school with a very good friend of mine, with whom I taught for a long time. The material in this bulletin has been taken, with minor changes, from articles which originally appeared in the Socialist Standard during the past five years. Unfortunately, controversy over his political thought has muddled the relation between his ethics and politics. Britain’s nineteenth-century economy drew its vigor from new inventions and their adaptation to profitable purposes, from population growth, and from the opening of global markets. The Marshall Plan stimulated demand in Europe and Asia, with much of the assistance being used to purchase consumer goods and capital goods produced by US manufacturers. Instead, I want to hone in on Mongiovi’s review as another indication of Sunkara and Chibber’s slow but inexorable retreat from Marxism. What of Keynesianism’s other, left, flank? Again in February 1918, Keynes admitted to “being a Bolshevik.”6 The famous journalist Clarence W. Barron, founder of Barron’s magazine, met Keynes in 1918 and recorded: “Lady Cunard says Keynes is a kind of socialist and my judgment is that he is a Socialist of the type that does not believe in the family.”7 In Keynes Against Capitalism, PERI researcher James Crotty demonstrates that John Maynard Keynes—the most influential economist of the 20th Century—advanced a coherent program on behalf of 'Liberal Socialism. Unlike Alvin Hansen, Keynes had no notion of capitalism’s stagnation tendencies. But Mann reserves “Keynesianism” proper for a stance to the left of center but short of socialism — reformism, more or less. In stark contrast to concepts such as class consciousness, historical materialism and the dialectic, Keynesian economics is associated with the moderate strand of socialist thought. … Winter 2020. In an important new book Keynes Against Capitalism: His Economic Case for Liberal Socialism (Routledge, 2019) James Crotty argues that Keynes was a socialist who advocated a much more radical economic agenda than most mainstream economists and political analysts realize. Keynes surely was not a classical liberal in the mold of David Hume, Adam Smith, or John Stuart Mill — but to make that point is a bit like taking a battering ram to a door that is already ajar.