Keynes himself was a socialist, his economic views are not nearly as conservative as one may think, he merely advocated for heavier efficiency of these services via cutting what is clearly unnecessary, as I agree to as well, though liberals usually try to excuse the cost issues as money is no object to them. The axis of Keynesian vs laissez-faire is more of a measure of intervention rather than the actual economic ideals of these two, as neither are necessarily counter to one another. The economics of Marxism are not a static set, they’re a collection of economic principles in a vague framework in which the ideals of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and many more are used as a blueprint to be mixed and morphed more than almost any system on earth. Their economics is extremely scientific in its nature, and has been changed, evolved, and developed for over a century, its issues and ideals continually gaining relevance and growing as the times change.
Their economic principles aren’t considered static gospel, they are records and thoughts of their time, and have shown an extreme amount of modern-day relevance to the current system today, making predictions and understanding the darker sides of this system better than its own advocates. Mises himself did have a heavily influential position among modern-day economic circles, though he was late, he still very much did get his principles followed by people like Reagan or Thatcher.
Fascism on the other hand tries to be the “mix”, though it truly only copied dirigisme-style capitalism, and advancement of government intervention far past the Keynesian thought, instead directing the economy rather than merely regulating it, though they didn’t ever rid themselves of the existence of private property, nor of the relations of the worker and employer which only exist in capitalism. They did not switch economic systems, they merely moved the dial inside the one they already existed in, being on of the single worst forms of capitalism in existence. If anyone… Read more
Be the first to reply to this disagreement.