accumulation of unsold commodities, which is necessarily accompanied by a credit crisis ultimately leads to a situation where interest-bearing and productive capitals lie idle. The monetarist school of bourgeois interventionism focusses on the first problem: the difficulty commodities face in realizing their money-value and dearth of money and credit. Monetarists believe that once this is addressed, the second problem, idle productive and interest-bearing capitals, will take care of itself. This is why monetarists are associated with free market fundamentalism. Not because they believe in absolutely self-regulating market: only idiots believe this nonsense nowadays. Keynesianism is much more aggressive. It prescribes state directly solving the problem of idle productive and interest-bearing capitals through fiscal activism; once this is done, the difficulty commodities face in realizing their money-value and the dearth of credit will solve themselves. After several decades of experimentation, the bourgeoisie had learned the limits of both schools and now, under the leadership of IMF, are asking why not both? We are saying: it is neither. At least Marxism had won this crucial victory: even the bourgeoisie accepted the inescapable need for rational planning of modern productive forces and the inevitably of market failures and crises. Now all we need to prove is futility of rational planning of capitalism!
Posted on: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 08:40:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015