<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[A Critique of Crisis Theory]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[critiqueofcrisistheory]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/author/critiqueofcrisistheory/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Are Marx and Keynes Compatible? Pt&nbsp;4]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p><strong>The Keynesian revolution in economic policy </strong></p>
<p>Before Keynes, neo-classical marginalist economists believed that  capitalism was stable if left to its own devices. These economists held  that a capitalist economy tended strongly toward an equilibrium at full  employment of both workers and machines. Therefore, if a recession were  to occur the response of the authorities should be pretty much confined  to having the central bank lower the discount rate. Otherwise, the  government should stay out of the way. As long as it did, the  marginalists claimed, the capitalist economy would quickly move back to  its only possible equilibrium position, &#8220;full employment.&#8221;</p>
<p>The events that followed World War I, especially the U.S.-centered  Great Depression of 1929-1941, discredited this view. Under the  influence of Keynes—and more importantly the Depression itself—most of  the new generation of (bourgeois) economists believed that it was now  the duty of the capitalist government to actively intervene whenever  recession threatened.</p>
<p>Bourgeois economics split in two. One branch, purely theoretical, is  called “microeconomics.” Microeconomics is simply the old marginalism.  The branch that emerged from the Keynesian revolution is called  “macroeconomics.”</p>
<p>Macroeconomics tries to explain the movements of the industrial  cycle. More importantly, it seeks to arm the capitalist governments and  &#8220;monetary authorities&#8221; with “tools” that will keep the capitalist  economy from sinking again into deep depression with the resulting mass  unemployment. The new stance of the bourgeois economists was that if the  capitalist governments and their monetary authorities use the &#8220;tool  chest&#8221; provided them by macroeconomics correctly, they should be able to  maintain &#8220;near to full employment with low inflation.&#8221;</p>
<p>Full employment was defined by this new generation of (bourgeois)  economists not the way workers would define it—everybody who desires a  job can quickly find one—but rather as a level of unemployment  sufficiently high to keep the wage demands of the workers and their  unions in check but low enough to prevent wide-scale unrest that could  lead to working-class radicalization and eventually socialist  revolution.</p>
<p><a href="https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/responses-to-readers%E2%80%94austrian-economics-versus-marxism/are-keynes-and-marx-compatible/are-marx-and-keynes-compatible-pt-4/">Read more &#8230;</a></p>
]]></html></oembed>