> Keynes's point is that monetized avarice as
> "as the main motive force of the economic
> machine" is specific to capitalism.
Is it really hard to see that the idea that workers are driven by "monetized avarice" is a tiny bit problematic? I have no problem characterizing a Madoff as driven by "monetized avarice," but wage workers forced to sell their labor power to the capitalists?
Read Harrod or Skidelsky on how contemptuously J.M. Keynes viewed the struggles of actually-existing workers, for example those Russians in November 1917. Keynes had strong opinions about all that. In 1925, Keynes published a Short View of Russia. (He married a Russian ballerina from Diaghilev's company. Although, I believe she left Russia before the revolution, many of the Diaghilev dancers came from families that felt compelled to leave Russia after the revolution.)
His views on Marx's Capital are easy to fetch with Google. Marxism, as I understand it, doesn't romanticize workers, their struggles, or their organizations. If the situation or behavior of workers under existing conditions were ideal, then why the need for them to rebel? But Marxism does view workers, collectively, potentially at least, as the preeminent liberating social force under capitalism. IMO, that is more valid now than ever. But that's another conversation....