Ekonomia zientzia, gobernu subiranoa, helburu publikoa eta MMT (hots, DTM)


Zientzia sozialak ez dira neutro. Ezinezkoa da. Eta Ekonomia zientzia aurrerakoi ala atzerakoia izan daiteke. Ekonomia ortodoxoak ez dauka zerikusirik MMT-rekin, DTM-rekin.


 


Ezaguna dugunez, gobernu subirano batek ezin du bere dirurik ahitu. Berak nahi duen beste diru propio sor, jaulki dezake. Dena konputagailu teklatuari dagokio eta nahi dugun beste diru lor dezakegu.


 


Beste aldetik, gobernua erabil dezakegu helburu publikoa lortzeko, eta berau aurrerapen progresiboa da, dudarik gabe.


 


Noski, helburu publikoa ulertzeko hainbat modu daude. Eta helburu publiko hori lortzeko bideak ere, desberdinak izan daitezke.


 


Gainera, lortuko dugun edozein hobekuntza ez da inoiz nahikoa izango, hobekuntza eta aurrerapen batek beste aurrerapen bat lortzera garamatza, eten gabe. Ez dago azken punturik.


 


Hortaz, zer egin lezakeen gobernuak da galdera nagusia.


 


Ekonomiaren alde monetarioa oso garrantzitsua da, Marx, Veblen edo eta Keynes-ek erakutsi ziguten moduan. Produkzio monetario modernoa ikertzerakoan diruarekin egiten dugu topo.


 


R. Wray-k dioenez, DTM berez da aurrerakoia[1], eta horrela aldarrikatu behar dugu.


 


Are gehiago, Wray-k Marx eta Engels-en testu ‘sakratu’ bat proposatzen digu, kapitalismoaren bilakaera ulertu ahal izateko, Manifestu Komunistaren zati bat[2].


 


Testu hori orain dela 160 urte idatzi zuten. Oda marxiar honetan enpresariaren ahalmena azaltzen da garbi.


 


DTM ez da marxiarra, baina onartzen du kapitalismoaren potentzia: kapitalismoa “has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.”


 


Kapitalismoa sistema nahiko sendoa da, nahiz eta eskariaren gabeziak eduki edo eta finantza krisi periodikoak jasan. Keynes-ek ohartu zuen moduan, kapitalismo modernoak eskari agregatuaren gabezia, desberdintasun gehiegi eta langabezia jasaten ditu. Hori dela eta, politika oso beharrezkoa da, hornikuntzaren aldeko neurriak lortzeko, ‘merkatu libre’ eta ‘ikustezinezko esku’ mitoetatik kanpo.


 


Izan ere, blog honetan ikusi dugun moduan,  gobernu diru laguntzarik gabe, ekonomia kapitalista zor-deflazio prozesu batean sar daiteke, zeinak ez baitu soilik ekonomia suntsitzen baizik eta politika faxista arriskutsuak askatu. Alta, horrelako diru laguntzen bidez, ekonomia burbuila handiagoetara bultzatzen da, helburu publikoa erabat baztertuz.


 


Baina, beste era batera jokatuz, gobernuaren gidatzearekin helburu publikoa askoz hobeto lor daiteke, etengabeko eta amaigabeko prozesu batean. Horixe erakutsi digute DTM-koek.









[2]  Hona testua: Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.


Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.


…The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.


The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.


…The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigor in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.


The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.


The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.


…The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.


The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.


The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?


We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.


 




 

Utzi erantzuna

Zure e-posta helbidea ez da argitaratuko. Beharrezko eremuak * markatuta daude