Is there an actual economics-based Marxist critique of SocDem economics?

is there an actual economics-based Marxist critique of SocDem economics?
Marx wrote Critique of Political Economy 150 years ago but where's the Marxist Critique of Keynesian Economy?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (474x734, 228.13K)

Other urls found in this thread:

grammar-monster.com/plurals/plural_of_crisis.htm
mronline.org/2010/05/22/political-aspects-of-full-employment/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Considerig socdem economics is just capitalist economics, just read anything marx ever wrote on capitalist economics.

but Keynes knew about the TRPF and designed his whole economics around it to avoid it.
there was no such devised system in Marx's time of early capitalism

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (480x288, 7.11K)

...

Keynsian economics does not avoid falling profit rates, it tries to avoid bussiness cycles and crisis's. The rate of profit will still fall, no matter how much fiat money you invest or tax.

crises
grammar-monster.com/plurals/plural_of_crisis.htm

Fuck off mate, spelling control said it was crisis's. English is a fucking retarded language.

Attached: 5825390.jpg (412x758, 94.24K)

Attached: Giant Rubber Stamp.webm (1280x720, 3.12M)

Also "hurr you made a mistake"

Attached: wow its fucking nothing.jpg (500x669, 57.35K)

sorry, it wasn't me, it was my fingers

Youre both for not just addressing the retarded OP and instead derailing a retarded thread with retarded grammarnazishit

This is the kind of rhetoric to be expected from a dilettante who doesn't know what true effort is and thinks it means reaching a conversational level. True effort is time consuming and needs to be economized.

one of the things I was thinking today is about how naturally syncretic a lot of religions actually are, by nature. this has been proven many times, but my favorite example is still this. perhaps this is relevant, maybe not, but the only real reason i got into philosophy in the first place was from failing at every form of fiction writing there is, and that in turn from mainly asking why it was required, in my cringe/bluepilled fashion, why it was that bad guys had to lose in the first place. that led to this.

Land has said things about the triumph of form over content, Negarestani too, and in the end they converge along the same basic ideas: that the tension inherent to efficiency itself is somewhere near the bleeding edge of modernity (read: technocapital). that anything that can be done once can be done twice, and that anything done twice can be done faster is more or less obvious, content independent. you can as such accelerate all things in all directions if you like, a process we could not uncharitably call schizophrenia. and it is a cybernetics-compatible schizophrenia, and the consequences thereof, that makes Land who he is. the origins of geometrical form themselves, or the anthropological development of technology are themes all worked out in Stiegler: it's not only technology, but *memory* that makes us human. YH slots in here because of his re-working of Stiegler's ideas (memory = tertiary retention) as adaptive, future-oriented cybernetics, a memory which anticipates (tertiary protention), and which is what makes the Automatic Society both appealing (Hey Cortana) and terrifying (imagine an app, stamping on a human face, forever).

but as a *thought experiment,* try the Hero Myth on. somehow it works, alchemically, in a very interesting way. it is, admittedly, *the* ideological process-generator par excellence. i should hope we are beyond the point of making extensive preambles about Oh No I Don't Mean Fascism Please Let Me Just Castrate Myself Real Quick. i would like to move on from that. i mean that in terms of what Land writes about Form > Content in a technological sense, to some degree this is already there within the monomyth. regardless of *what* kind of ideology you want to write, for whatever end, the hero myth *works.* whether it's for communism, fascism, or Dora the Explorer. it *works.*

Holy fuck bro zoek een leven ofzo

"Capitalism and Social Democracy" by Adam Przeworski is definitely one of the books you will want to check out, OP. Przeworski argues that a democratic road to socialism is very unlikely because the open competition between ruling class groups amplifies "heterogenous interests". It increases the tendency of working-class people to build political identities outside of being working-class, undermines hard breaks with capitalism by guaranteeing pro-capitalists groups a voice in legislation and politics, etc. He also tries to argue at length that labor unions in stable democracies are risk-averse and thus inherently reformist.

Moreover, he says that socialism is still more desirable than social democracy because socialists want to totally eliminate "economic necessity" i.e. the idea that people have to somehow attain the basic necessities of life and guide their life by those needs. Eliminating economic necessity increases the scope of human liberty by allowing people to freely associate in their own chosen interaction and activities. For example, gender, family, religious norms would have no forcible authority since people no longer need to rely on these institutions and their social networks to survive. People in abusive situations who are afraid of leaving due to not having any other way to live, would instead have the freedom to leave if they had free quality housing, food, child care, medical care, etc.

Attached: and youre fine with capitalism.png (908x826, 186.88K)

Unlike Marxism, Keynesianism has been tried time and time again by capitalists. And it has utterly failed to prevent market crashes. In comparison, the Soviet economy went decades without any economic crashes– the "stagnation" of late Brezhnev was actually good growth by modern capitalist standards.

There is literally no way even in theory to stop the falling rate of profit. The whole basis for generalized commodity production is growth and reinvestment, making production more efficient and outcompeting other producers. If you kept the rate of profit from falling you'd have to prevent business from taking place.

English is 3 languages stacked on top of each other wearing a trenchcoat.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (249x514, 170.85K)

Social Democracy and Keynesian economics are actually different, don't abuse the terms.
But if you want a good critique of Keynesianism you should read Kalekci's article on full employment:mronline.org/2010/05/22/political-aspects-of-full-employment/
Basically he talks about how full employment schemes will not last since Business interests are fundamentally opposed to it, save under fascism.

Thats what you get for speaking a creole.

kek

...

If you look at the chart of falling profit rates that's always posted, it bounces all over the place rather than simply sitting in flat decline.

Also from my own ad-hoc merger of neoliberal and marxist understandings of a falling rate of profit a falling rate of profit can be mitigated with anticompetitive practices, which were often another element of keynesian political economy. (i.e. regulation of airlines and trucking companies to reduce competition, often with an agreed upon rate of profit.) that's not part of keynes' ideas, but it was an element of "actually existing social democracy."


seconding this, Kalekci is based.

Falling ROP is the overall tendency, the countervailing tendencies are cyclical and follow the market crash cycle (ROP spikes after a crash, though usually lower than the last spike).
Anticompetitive practices are only viable if you can control the world market in some way. In practice, the main form of this is Intellectual Property and trade secrets combined with monopoly. It slows the competition down, but not forever. Hence the US freakout over China.

It doesn't matter. Capital can buy time by creating new markets (overseas or entirely new desire for products like smartphones or whatever) but 1 : it only buys so much time and 2 : it can't be forced (see how hard apple fails to force tablets)