tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post6692621464841345119..comments2023-08-29T01:27:13.772-07:00Comments on Magpie's Asymmetric Warfare: Keynes' Close Friends: Will's Turn.Magpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-82275935181717051012014-04-20T05:36:59.673-07:002014-04-20T05:36:59.673-07:00Please, don't take this the wrong way, Mason, ...Please, don't take this the wrong way, Mason, but it seems the more opinions I hear about Keynes' "allergy" to Marx, the more confirmation for my suspicion that Keynes' opinion on Marx reveals more about Keynes as a person **and** an intellectual than about Marx:<br /><br />(1) Whether His Lordship knew what he was talking about or not (more on this at the end), everybody seems essentially in agreement that his explicit opinion on Marx was influenced by all sorts of exogenous things, beyond the relative merits (or lack thereof) of Marx's argument. The specific reason changes (anti-Semitism, elitism, now you advance a more general "political purpose", either on an exclusive basis or in combination), but the three of us seem to agree these external things somehow cloud Keynes' judgment.<br /><br />Note that I am speaking of **explicit**opinion**. Let me put this clearly, hoping I am not being rude. My main concern here is what is written and what it actually says, not Keynes' unspoken purpose for writing that.<br /><br />However,<br /><br />(2) Did Keynes know his Marx? You say he did, and support your claim on literature (btw, thanks for the link to Bertocco's paper: I found it curious it doesn't mention Gesell; I couldn't lay my hands on Behrens'). <br /><br />But there is literature claiming exactly the opposite:<br /><br />"Keynes’s knowledge of Marx’s economics was mainly based on secondary literature rather than on a direct acquaintance with the original writings of Marx. Joan Robinson was convinced that Keynes ‘never managed to read Marx’ (1973: ix) and that, in any case, he ‘could never make head or tail of Marx’ (1964: 96)"<br /><br />Sardoni, C. 1997. "Keynes and Marx," in A 'Second Edition' of The General Theory. G. C. Harcourt and P. Riach eds. London and New York: Routledge. The third section (Keynes's opinion of Marx) also mentions my "obsolete economic textbook" quote.<br /><br />Who should I believe?Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-68559073739787932162014-04-19T17:26:04.309-07:002014-04-19T17:26:04.309-07:00Keynes certainly had read Marx, and found he had c...Keynes certainly had read Marx, and found he had considerable interest and application for the modern world. For <a href="http://eco.uninsubria.it/dipeco/quaderni/files/QF2011_02.pdf" rel="nofollow">example</a>:<br /><br />"Karl Marx pointed out that the nature of production in the actual world is not, as economists seem often to suppose, a case of C- M- C‘, i. e. of exchanging commodity (or effort) for money in order to obtain another commodity (or effort). That may be the standpoint of the private consumer. But it is not the attitude of business, which is a case of M-C-M‘, i. e. of parting with money for commodity (or effort) in order to obtain more money. This is important."<br /><br />The lines you quote were written in a political context, for a political purpose. It is not an accurate summary of Keynes' relationship to Marxism.<br /><br />More generally, see Behrens (1985), “What Keynes Knew About Marx,” Studi Economici 26, pp. 3–14.<br /><br /><br />JW Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664452827447313845noreply@blogger.com