Keyseian economics do cover the tracks of a substantial portion of the contradictions within capitalism. Namely, you can prevent virtually any large enterprise from going belly up this way.
The problem is that this then creates a massive upwards transfer of wealth from petite bourgeois/middle class to the ruling class, which is in many ways more likely to lead to fascism than socialism, as the working classes position can forever remain stagnant, without serious decline (although the pandemic really did change this, but a normal financial crisis wouldn't) under expansionary economics. The rise of socialism mostly happened during a period where the economic health of many countries had a massive rapid decline in the standard of living even for the working class.
Keyseian economics do cover the tracks of a substantial portion of the contradictions within capitalism. Namely, you can prevent virtually any large enterprise from going belly up this way
You realize the most basic and fatal contradiction of capitalism is the fact that workers and the capitalists have opposing interests, right?
If there's class conflict, the system will eventually end, someday.
How does keynesianism cover this?
Of course and I'm not denying that, although I did probably word that poorly. Name it's that a prerequisite of that is people working together inside these large enterprises that can then later be socialized. Should those enterprises no longer exist, there isn't any socialism that could then later come about for said workers.
Keynesianism does also protect the broader social contract within social democracy however which is the more important point there.
I was just arguing that it really can't be "kept away from imploding". A look at history and you realize it's inevitable
Also I'm glad you mentioned that we should not limit ourselves to "socialize the workplace", we should abolish it altogether, eventually. I see too many communists arguing and limiting themselves to "democratizing the workplace", not realizing the hell of capitalism is not that the firm has a boss, but the firm itself
Keyseian economics do cover the tracks of a substantial portion of the contradictions within capitalism. Namely, you can prevent virtually any large enterprise from going belly up this way.
The problem is that this then creates a massive upwards transfer of wealth from petite bourgeois/middle class to the ruling class, which is in many ways more likely to lead to fascism than socialism, as the working classes position can forever remain stagnant, without serious decline (although the pandemic really did change this, but a normal financial crisis wouldn't) under expansionary economics. The rise of socialism mostly happened during a period where the economic health of many countries had a massive rapid decline in the standard of living even for the working class.
You realize the most basic and fatal contradiction of capitalism is the fact that workers and the capitalists have opposing interests, right? If there's class conflict, the system will eventually end, someday. How does keynesianism cover this?
Of course and I'm not denying that, although I did probably word that poorly. Name it's that a prerequisite of that is people working together inside these large enterprises that can then later be socialized. Should those enterprises no longer exist, there isn't any socialism that could then later come about for said workers.
Keynesianism does also protect the broader social contract within social democracy however which is the more important point there.
I was just arguing that it really can't be "kept away from imploding". A look at history and you realize it's inevitable
Also I'm glad you mentioned that we should not limit ourselves to "socialize the workplace", we should abolish it altogether, eventually. I see too many communists arguing and limiting themselves to "democratizing the workplace", not realizing the hell of capitalism is not that the firm has a boss, but the firm itself