Greetings,
Djamil Lakhdar-Hamina’s article on Post-Keynesianism and MMT may be, I think, a tad too negative. While the criticism doesn’t go down the route of Michael Roberts’ The Next Recession blog site, I don’t think the notion that Post-Keynesianism and MMT are philosophically Idealistic, rather than Materialistic, is valid.
The criticism does not stress the crucial differences between Bastard Keynesianism – what passes for Keynesianism as per the Post-War Consensus – and Post-Keynesianism and MMT. Whether they like it or not, advocates of the latter are unconscious “supply-side” economists, but for labour instead of capital. What should be appealing to the left about Post-Keynesianism and MMT is their use for substantive left reforms, something missing from the Marxist tradition, which has been forced to tail the Bastard Keynesians.
I strongly urge comrades to consider a number of comments I’ve posted on heteconomist.com, a knowledgeable website that attempts to mingle Post-Keynesian and Marxian economic stuff together:
http://heteconomist.com/mmt-an
http://heteconomist.com/fairne
http://heteconomist.com/fiscal
On that website, I’ve discussed things such as “Fiscally Conservative Socialism,” real problems with the Job Guarantee concept (and why particular forms of it should be supported, anyway), and the political reason why MMT should be preferred over Monetarism for the same reason Marx preferred direct taxation over indirect taxation.
Comradely,
Jacob
P.S. – Lakhdar-Hamina’s criticism is also a bit reductionist in using Anwar Shaikh’s argument for net profitability as a dividing line for the successes and failures of both Bastard Keynesianism and Post-Keynesianism. No, the fundamental dividing line should not be profit-based, but rather productivity-based. When real productivity growth is zero, capitalist growth has a problem.
