[lbo-talk] Open Letter from a Keynesian to a Marxist by Joan Robinson

[c b]

farmelantj
Joan Robinson abjured the label of Marxist because she rejected both
the labor theory of value and dialectics, having described herself as
an old fashion English empiricist. Nevertheless, she was very much
influenced by Marxism. In an essay of hers that I once came across,
she said that the three economists who had the most influence upon her
were Alfred Marshall, John Maynard Keynes, and Karl Marx. Actually, I
would have no problem calling her a Marxist, since, especially in her
later work, she drew so heavily from the Marxian tradition and was a
confirmed socialist. Arguably, her views weren't too far from people
who were calling themselves Analytical Marxists back in the 1980s and
1990s. Most of those people, too, rejected the labor theory of value
and dialectics, but still saw themselves as working within the Marxian
tradition both in their theoretical work and in their politics,

^^^^^
CB: All fine and dandy, but which side are u on ? Marx or Robinson ?
Dialectics and the labor theory of value (!) are ,uhhh,k kind of
central to Marx's theory.   Being influenced by _parts_ of Marx's
theory is not to be a Marxist. Marxism doesn't work like that.  There
is no such thing as eclectic Marxism.  Dropping main ideas like
dialectics or the labor theory of value makes the theory non-Marxist.
Marxism is all or nothing. There's no such thing as dipping into
Marxism and getting some good ideas and then coupling them with
Keynesian ideas. I mean god bless social democracy and fiscal social
spending, welfare states etc. but that ain't Marxism.  Keynesianism
gives a petit bourgeois rationale for reforms of capitalism , which
Marxists support when objective conditions only allow for reform.  But
Keynesian ideas don't mix with Marxism at the ultimate and most
fundamental level of theory..

What was Robinson's attitude toward the class struggle, lead role of
the working class in overthrowing capitalism ?

Marx did not mean his  political economic theory, as espoused most
fully in _Capital_ , to be the basis for mainly a theory of reforming
and abating economic crises.  I think that's why he did not leave a
clear statement of his theory of crises. He didn't want Marxists
concentrating on the best anti-crisis _reform_ theory.  Marxists are
to spend our time propagandizing revolutionary theory and practice,
cause nobody else will be doing that.