by A real Marxist — not a Marxist or Marxian economist who also understand MMT very well — comments on the MMT JG. Magpie is not only an ordinary person (worker) but also very intelligent and well-read. In that sense he represents an important constituency that needs to be taken into account in the debate.I understand why MMT economists have taken the tack they have strategically. They apparently want to argue narrowly what can be accomplished to change both current economic thinking, the current political narrative, and policy. But this leaves them open to criticism on the basis of what is being ignored in the bigger picture. The real problem lies not in incorrect analysis of the system but the design of the system itself. Obviously, it would be a strategic blunder to try to tackle that
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Matias Vernengo writes Elon Musk (& Vivek Ramaswamy) on hardship, because he knows so much about it
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Klas Eklunds ‘Vår ekonomi’ — lärobok med stora brister
New Economics Foundation writes We need more than a tax on the super rich to deliver climate and economic justice
Robert Vienneau writes Profits Not Explained By Merit, Increased Risk, Increased Ability To Compete, Etc.
A real Marxist — not a Marxist or Marxian economist who also understand MMT very well — comments on the MMT JG. Magpie is not only an ordinary person (worker) but also very intelligent and well-read. In that sense he represents an important constituency that needs to be taken into account in the debate.
I understand why MMT economists have taken the tack they have strategically. They apparently want to argue narrowly what can be accomplished to change both current economic thinking, the current political narrative, and policy. But this leaves them open to criticism on the basis of what is being ignored in the bigger picture. The real problem lies not in incorrect analysis of the system but the design of the system itself. Obviously, it would be a strategic blunder to try to tackle that initially.
Those impressed by Marx's analysis and backed up by modern sociology and economic sociology will agree that MMT leaves the foundations of capitalism intact, whereas the foundation (wage labor) is the problem with captialism. Histgorically, there was a progression from slavery to serfdom to wage labor that maintains the inherent privilege of a few built into the system by design.
That needs to change for the system to progress toward freedom for all, and that is what socialism is largely about economically. It was to Marx, who correctly observed that this system based on freedom for the few and bondage to paid work is perpetuated institutionally by asymmertic power based on class structure. Contermporary economic sociologist C. Wright Mills, for example, agreed.
My view, and that of Marxian economist Chris Dillow as I recall, is that the transition to socialism will happen through the intermediary step of social democracy, leading eventually to democratic socialism. This is what the ruling elite are afraid of, and it is why they are so opposed to social democracy.