NOTE
the accompanying article is the translation of the article to which he referred Manuel Riesco "Read to know the big four capital" in the Financial Times.
Although there are some aspects which we could disagree with the author, for example when he says that capitalism is the system that is going to stay because you think you can resolve the contradictions THROUGH regulation and state intervention. Also, when he asserts that Marx's proposal was to create an egalitarian communist from the beginning.
On the other hand, you have to recognize that the author's call to read Marx and other greats of Political Economy, while recognizing the enormous value of the author of Capital.
is also a call for attention to the Socialists of Peru and the world to return to Marx and study his work to give you this respect the extraordinary effort it cost them to Marx and Engels. Marx spent nearly 20 years going to the London Library to dig all these materials, reading everything could about the development of capitalism and the history of the modes of production through history.
Marx's work was arduous and required extraordinary effort, that only an intellectual giant was able to do as he did, of course with the help of his friend Engels another Titan of Socialism. Marx had to learn other languages \u200b\u200bto understand the books and original studies, had to learn Arithmetic and Algebra, Statistics and Calculus, and any substance which would allow the Critique of Political Economy (which was the subtitle of this book). Marx suffered from various physical ailments, the economic hardships that affected their studies and family life. But his intention was to Capitalism in the dock of history, showing as a system that was temporary, not eternal as a system not solve social problems but exacerbates them. And in the center had the elements of its own overcoming social.Queria a new system put in the hands of the Workers of the World a tool and a weapon for self-liberation
Let us therefore that the name of scientific socialism is not a name that was given to his opponents dazed. A Hug
Eduardo Vargas
PD. the end is the original article in English.
Read the Big Four economists to learn the fate of capitalism
Posted By Paul Kennedy: March 12, 2009 20:42 worthwhile to suggest to Obama and other leaders, that instead they study the writings of the greatest economists of the world?
After all, we can be in such a bleak economic condition, that the intelligent direction of the budget is a higher quality of leadership that the firm conducting the combat ships. Since today's leaders can not possibly read all the most important works of political economy, we help by selecting four of the biggest names in the classic collection of Robert Heilbroner, The Global Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas Great Economic Thinkers:
Adam Smith, the virtual founder of the discipline and an early apostle of the principles of free trade, Karl Marx, the sharp critic of the weaknesses of capitalism, and less reliable predictor of its "inevitable" collapse, Joseph Schumpeter, the bright little Austrian Orthodox certainly was not an enemy of the capitalist system, but warned of its inherent volatility (the "perennial gale of creative destruction") and that big brain, John Maynard Keynes, who spent the second half of his astonishing political career trying to find to rescue the same temperamental free-market order to avoid crashing into the ground.
Perhaps the supremely talented playwright Tom Stoppard could put these four sages on the stage and offer a discussion between them, an imaginary ring for a long weekend on the future of capitalism. A lack of such creative work What we can imagine that the four great masters of political economy could tell us about our current economic crisis?
Smith, one imagines, could claim that he had never advocated a laissez faire total, would be horrified how the subprime loans to individuals fiscally uncertain, contradict his devotion to the moral economy, and express its concern about the deficit proposed spending by many governments.
Marx, could still be badly beaten by learning from the perversion of his communist theories of Lenin and Stalin, and the explosive demise of most socialist economies of the world since 1989. However, he could still feel pleasure about the sinking of modern financial capitalism because of its own contradictions.
The austere Schumpeter, by contrast, could be giving a lecture we're going to have to swallow a decade of severe depression before a new, lighter form (more athletic, EV) of capitalism might emerge again, though with a lot of evidence of severe storms damage in their wake (the end of the U.S. automobile industry, the decline of the City of London, perhaps)
and Keynes? My personal opinion is that it would be very happy with the current state of affairs. He could be (only may) consider it to be credited or be misinterpreted million times in the media today, but one suspects that he might feel uncomfortable in certain parts of the plan of deficit-spending Obama the proposal of the Department of U.S. Treasury allocating more money to buy bad debt and bad bank bailout, instead of investing in job creation, to observe the spending spree in Washington that seems without coordination with Britain, Japan, China and the rest, and, most disturbing of all, face the fact that nobody is asking who will buy the 1,750 billion [thousand million, EV] of dollars U.S. Treasury Bonds to be offered to the market this year - will be the quartet of East Asia, China, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea (all with their own catastrophic collapse in production), the insecure Arab states (yes, but perhaps a tenth of what needed), or the European states and South America almost in bankruptcy? Good luck,
If that amount colossal paper purchased this year, who have the funds ready to buy Treasury issues 2010, 2011, while the U.S. immersed in debt levels that could cause the record of the Spain of Felipe II, seem austere by comparison.
In the broadest sense, of course, all four of our philosophers would be correct. Capitalism - our ability to buy and sell, as we move money around and make a profit doing so - is in serious trouble. There is no doubt that Smith, while watching the collapse of Iceland and tribulations of Ireland, is reconsidering his aphorism, that to create a prosperous state is For more than a bit of "peace, soft taxation and administration of justice" - did not work this time.
contrast, roars of satisfaction could be heard from Marx's grave in Highgate Cemetery, still causing considerable excitement to many Chinese visitors. Meanwhile, Schumpeter would have just cause to murmur: "This is not a surprise, really."
For Keynes, we can imagine taking tea with Wittgenstein in Grantchester Meadows, pursing his lips at the inability of normal human beings just do the right thing: our tendency to over-optimism, our blindness to Signs of economic overheating, our propensity to panic - and our need, more and more frequently, to search for intelligent men like him to stick back to the shattered Humpty-Dumpty of international capitalism.
All these political economists instinctively recognized that the triumph of free market forces - with the consequent elimination of the old social contracts, the decline (of power, EV) of the state over the individual, the end of restrictions on usury - not only bring greater wealth for many, but could also produce significant consequences, perhaps unintended, that could move through of entire societies.
Laissez faire, laissez aller was not only a call to those in conflict with the limitation medieval and hierarchical, but was also a call to unleash Prometheus. Logically, this has freed you from the chains of both a pre-market, but also the risks you free financial and social disaster. At the site of the Augustinian rules came Bernie Madoff opportunities.
instinctive For the same reason, governments more sensitive time Smith has taken precautions against the completely unrestricted search, for the citizens of the private benefits. States have invoked the national security needs (Therefore, we need to protect certain industries, even if it is not profitable), the desire for social stability (and therefore not allowing a 1 per cent of the population owns 99 percent of its wealth and thereby cause civil unrest), and common sense in spending on public goods (and therefore investment in roads, schools and firefighters).
In fact, with the exception of the few communist states absurdly like North Korea, all the economic policies of many of today are found along a spectrum recognizable, more free-market measures against the less free market.
But what has happened in last decade or so is that many governments lower their guard and allowed to individuals, banks, insurance companies and investment funds in search of quick profits, a far greater range of action to create new investment schemes, more and more control capital on the basis of real resources increasingly weak, and dramatically expand the collection of innocent victims (those silly, low-income, trusted nonprofit organizations, Jewish charities, friends of a friend of an investment manager The list is long), creating our own spectacular was the equivalent of the bubble in the South Seas.
As in all these gigantic credit collapse, many millions more people - the innocent and the foolish - will be affected vendors and snake fat loan servicers who perpetrated the schemes called "wealth creation" .
So what is the future of capitalism? Our current system damaged, is not, despite the hopes of Marx, to be replaced by a totally egalitarian society, communist (such agreements could be there in life after death).
Our economic policy in the future is probably not one in which Smith and his disciples of today can find much comfort: there will be a degree more-than-welcome government interference in "the market", a somewhat higher taxes and a strong public disapproval of the principle of profit in general.
Schumpeter and Keynes, one suspects, will feel a little more at home with our new political economy post-neo-capitalist excess.
This will be a system in which the animal spirits of the market will be closely monitored (and controlled) by a variety of zookeepers national and international - a check, which most of the audience heartily approves - but there will be a ritual killing of the principle of free enterprise, even if we have to sink deeper into depression for the next few years. Hummus Economicus receive a terrible beating.
But capitalism, in modified form, is not going away. Like democracy, it has serious flaws - but, as one finds a defect of democracy, critics of capitalism will find that all other systems are worse. The political economy tell us.
The writer is professor of history and director of International Security Studies at Yale University, is author / editor of 19 books, including The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (Vintage). He is writing a story operation of the second world war. To participate in the debate go to www.ft.com / capitalismblog. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You can share with our tools article. Please do not cut FT.com items and redistributed by e-mail or publishing on the web.
Read to know the big four capital's fate
By Paul Kennedy Published: March 12 2009 20:42 (who in turn liked to read about his illustrious ancestor, Marlborough). Barack Obama looks to biographies of Abraham Lincoln for inspiration. Given the enormity of the banking, credit and trade crisis, might it be worth suggesting to Mr Obama and his fellow leaders that they study the writings of the greatest of the world’s political economists, instead? After all, we may be in such a grim economic condition that the clever direction of budgets is a greater attribute of leadership than the stout direction of battleships. Since today’s leaders cannot possibly read all the major works of political economy, let us help them by selecting four of the greatest names from Robert Heilbroner’s classic collection The Worldly Philosophers : The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers: Adam Smith, the virtual founder of the discipline and early apostle of free trade; Karl Marx, that penetrating critic of the foibles of capitalism, and less reliable predictor of its “inevit-able” collapse; Joseph Schumpeter, the brilliant and unorthodox Austrian who was certainly no foe of the capitalist system but warned of its inherent volatilities (its “perennial gale of creative destruction”); and that great brain, John Maynard Keynes, who spent the second half of his astonishing career seeking to find policies to rescue the same temperamental free-market order from crashing to the ground.
Perhaps the supremely gifted playwright Tom Stoppard could put those four savants on stage and offer an imaginary weekend-long quadrilateral discourse among them about the future of capitalism. Failing such a creative work, what might we imagine the four great political economists would say about our present economic crisis?
Smith, one imagines, would claim that he had never advocated total laissez faire, was appalled at how sub-prime loans to fiscally insecure people contradicted his devotion to moral economy, and was concerned at the deficit spending proposed by many governments. Marx would still be badly bruised by learning of Lenin and Stalin’s perversion of his communistic theories, and by the post-1989 withering-away of most of the world’s socialist economies; yet he might still feel pleasure at modern financial capitalism foundering on its contradictions. The austere Schumpeter, by contrast, might be lecturing us to swallow another decade of serious depression before a newer, leaner form of capitalism emerged again, though with lots of evidence of severe gale-damage (the end of the US car industry, the decline of the City of London, perhaps) in its wake.
And Keynes? My own guess is that he would not be very happy at today’s state of affairs. He might (only might) regard it as fine that he was quoted or misquoted millions of times in today’s media, but one suspects that he would be uneasy at parts of Mr Obama’s deficit-spending scheme: at the US Treasury’s proposal to allocate more money to buying bad debts and rescuing bad banks than investing in job creation; at a Washington spending spree that seems unco-ordinated with those of Britain, Japan, China and the rest; and, most unsettling of all, at the fact that no one is asking who will purchase the $1,750bn of US Treasuries to be offered to the market this year – will it be the east Asian quartet, China, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea (all with their own catastrophic collapses in production), the uneasy Arab states (yes, but to perhaps one-tenth of what is needed), or the near-bankrupt European and South American states? Good luck! If that colossal amount of paper is bought this year, who will have ready funds to purchase the Treasury flotations of 2010, then 2011, as the US plunges into levels of indebtedness that could make Philip II of Spain’s record seem austere by comparison?
In the larger sense, of course, all four of our philosophers would be correct. Capitalism – our ability to buy and sell, move money around as we wish, and to turn a profit by doing so – is in deep trouble. No doubt Smith, as he watches the collapse of Iceland and the Irish travails, is reconsidering his aphorism that little else is needed to create a prosperous state than “peace, easy taxes and tolerable administration of justice” – that did not work this time. By contrast, rumbles of satisfaction might be heard coming from Marx’s grave in Highgate cemetery, causing excitement for the still-considerable numbers of Chinese visitors. Meanwhile, Schumpeter will have due cause to mutter: “This is not a surprise, really.” As for Keynes, we might imagine him sipping tea with Wittgenstein at Grantchester meadows, pursing his lips at the incapacity of merely normal human beings to get things right: at our tendency to excessive optimism, our blindness to the signs of economic over-heating, our proneness to panic – and our need, every so often, to turn to clever men like himself to put the shattered Humpty-Dumpty of international capitalism back together again.
All these political economists instinctively recognised that the triumph of free-market forces – with the consequent elimination of older social contracts, the downgrading of the state over the individual, the end of restraints upon usury – would not only bring greater wealth to many but could also produce significant, possibly unintended consequences that would ripple through entire societies. Laissez faire, laissez aller was not only a call to those chafing under medieval, hierarchical constraints; it was also a call to unbind Prometheus. Logically, it both freed you from the chains of a pre-market age, and freed you to the risks of financial and social disaster. In the place of Augustinian rules came Bernie Madoff opportunities.
By the same instinctive reasoning, most sensible governments since Smith’s time have taken precautions against citizens’ totally unrestricted pursuit of private advantage. States have invoked the needs of national security (therefore you must protect certain industries, even if that is uneconomic), the desire for social stability (therefore do not allow 1 per cent of the population to own 99 per cent of its wealth and thus provoke civil riot), and the common sense of spending upon public goods (therefore invest in highways, schools and fire-brigades). In fact, with the exception of the few absurdly communist states such as North Korea, all of today’s many political economies lie along a recognisable spectrum of more-free-market versus less-free-market arrangements.
But what has happened over the past decade or more is that many governments let down their guard and allowed nimble, profit-seeking individuals, banks, insurance companies and hedge funds much greater scope to create new investment schemes, leverage more and more capital on the basis of increasingly thin real resources and widen dramatically the pool of gullible victims (silly, under-earning individuals, hopeful not-for-profits, Jewish charities, friends of a friend of an investment manager, the list is long), thereby creating our own era’s spectacular equivalent of the South Sea Bubble. As in all such gigantic credit “busts”, many millions more people – the innocent as well as the foolish – will be hurt than the snake-oil salesmen and loan managers who perpetrated these so-called “wealth creation” schemes.
What, then, is capitalism’s future? Our current, damaged system is not, despite Marx’s hopes, to be replaced by a totally egalitarian, communist society (such arrangements might be there in life after death). Our future political economy will probably not be one in which Smith or his present-day disciples could find much comfort: there will be a higher-than-welcome degree of government interference in “the market”, somewhat larger taxes and heavy public disapprobation of the profit principle in general. Schumpeter and Keynes, one suspects, will feel rather more at home with our new post-excess neocapitalist political economy. It will be a system where the animal spirits of the market will be closely watched (and tamed) by a variety of national and international zookeepers – a taming of which the great bulk of the spectators will heartily approve – but there will be no ritual murder of the free-enterprise principle, even if we have to plunge further into depression for the next years. Homus Economicus will take a horrible beating. But capitalism, in modified form, will not disappear. Like democracy, it has serious flaws – but, just as one find faults with democracy, the critics of capitalism will discover that all other systems are worse. Political economy tells us so.
The writer is professor of history and director of International Security Studies at Yale University, is the author/editor of 19 books, including The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (Vintage). He is writing an operational history of the second world war. To join the debate go to www.ft.com/capitalismblog
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You May Share Our article using tools. Please do not cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. TacnaComunitaria
0 comments:
Post a Comment