Moneta-Teoria Modernoa (MTM) eta Marx

Hasierarako ikus ondoko linkak, MTM dela eta:

Moneta-Teoria Modernoa (Warren Mosler, 2022an)

gehi

PDFn: Arratsalde bat Warren Mosler-ekin

Segida, Marx-i buruzko apurrak:

Marx hasiberrientzat

Sorry, Marxek arrazoi zuen

Marx irakurri behar dugu

Bill Mitchell-i egindako elkarrizketa (Marx eta DTM)

Batzuek lan egiten dute…

“…El dinero del que hablaba Marx ya no existe”.

Sozialismo fiduziarioaz haratago

De la ley de la tendencia decreciente de la cuota de ganancia de Marx a la ley de Mosler:

…solo una de estas dos leyes puede ser correcta, ya que son leyes que se excluyen mutuamente. Las podemos enunciar de la siguiente manera:

1. Ley de la tendencia decreciente de la cuota de ganancia de Marx: todo sistema económico basado en la propiedad privada de los medios de producción está destinado inevitablemente a colapsar (sección tercera del tercer volumen de “El Capital”).

2. Ley de Mosler: no hay crisis financiera lo suficientemente profunda como para que n

Bill Mitchell: Marx eta MTM (1)

Bill Mitchell: (Modern) Marx eta MTM (2)

Gehigarri berezia:

Reframing Marx Through Modern Monetary Theory with Nathan Tankus

(https://realprogressives.org/podcast_episode/episode-68-reframing-marx-through-modern-monetary-theory-with-nathan-tankus/)

What do we gain from increasing taxes on the 1%? It’s not a Marxist proposition: he never suggested that taxes would alleviate exploitation.

Transkripzioa: inside the link

(…)

Grumbine (00:01:36):

… if the state’s able to create money out of thin air, how does that impact labor theory of value and how does that impact labor and so forth?

Tankus (00:02:13):

(…)

… MMT is focusing on how the monetary system works,

(…)

Tankus (00:21:19):

… the Communist Manifesto,.. to the extent he ever did fully develop his theoretical apparatus.

… Marx fundamentally was just always trying to figure out how capitalism worked. And so that, you know, nothing, nothing about Marx stands or falls about your view about the next society.

(…)

Grumbine (00:35:11):

… the idea of taxing the rich and taxing wealth and going after this…

taxation is deleted, that the federal taxes come in and they purge reserves, whatever you want to say, how well, however technical you want to get about it. Bottom line is they aren’t reused, they’re gone, they don’t do anything.

… taxes don’t fund anything, …

Tankus (00:38:09):

…, taxing the rich doesn’t actually do anything to get rid of their control. They they’re still setting prices.

…Marxists miss is that… might be perpetuated by, you know, the way some MMTers approach, …that separating taxing the rich from spending on social programs.

The point isn’t to defend the rich and to, you know, making sure that they have all the good things in life. The point is to the point is a political point that, you know, when you connect taxing the rich to doing the social programs, you A, limit your social programs to whatever you can tax out of them and whatever, you know, overseas accounts you can find, but B you’re giving them a false control.

…, Joshua Mason, ,,, Marxists, … I wouldn’t say an MMTer, but pretty sympathetic to MMT, you know, rightly points out that when you say that, you know, you know, capitalists fund the government, either as a people paying taxes or buying bonds, you’re saying that they have control over the government in their, in their capacity of, you know, being money owners.

And that’s not true. …

…the means of production are the true source of wealth, well, part of that is saying that,…, capitalist money that the money that capitalists own is just, you know, some claim and we don’t need it in order to, you know, do what we want with the means of production.

…, there’s no, you know, MMT no argument explicitly against taxing the rich. The point is to make our policy program of taxing the rich, you know, separate from our policy program of say, full employment, or, you know, more public services. And that, and that it’s crucial for these to be separate things.

(…)

Tankus (00:44:54):

… the argument for taxing the rich is straightforwardly an argument about, you know, reducing their consumption, which we see is not a very useful use of our collective resources and to reduce their political power.

… if the argument we win is taxing the rich well, I mean, the most basic point is if the argument we win is taxing the rich and no one’s lives get better, well, then you lose the election and then they come in, what do they do? They said, look how terrible things are, you know, and the riches and the taxes on the rich are so hot.

… you need to be giving real material things to people’s lives. You know, we’re talking about materialism, …

… capitalist interests because they still control the society. It’s just, their taxes are a little higher and you know, it doesn’t fundamentally change anything. And fundamentally also doesn’t improve people’s lives.

And you know, no matter how high, how high you raise their marginal tax rate, you know, capitalists are still gonna control the means of production. That means controlling people’s working lives. …

So you have to give people material things. You have to give them a public option and jobs, and, you know, a basic level of working conditions that compete with that private option. You need to be able to give them healthcare so they’re less tied and less desperate in central part. … raising taxes on the rich, you know, if we want to get more polemical, expropriating the wealthy or whatever, or crap like that, but that’s not the essential thing that people care about.

And frankly, also, if you read Marx, I’d be surprised that’s the central things that you care about. If you read volume one of his horrific discussions of, you know, people, people suffocating in factories because there’s literally not enough air given the amount of people that they shove in there. …

No he’s talking about working conditions. You know, then, you know, no matter how, you know, it’s sort of weird where you get the sort of posture of radicalism. And then, you know, at the end, I’ll tax the rich to fund these social programs. So that’s not the central point.

(…)

Tankus (00:52:18):

… to the extent that inequality in control and wealth and control over the means of production, the inequality in, uh, wealth inequality, in income, to the extent that they, those broad political differences and can potentially push back against the gains we’ve made, it’s important to be able to hit that conflict head on.

But they’re not fundamentally the same character and that fundamentally, you know, it’s control over our lives and wants; and the level of want that we have for our basic needs and desires. That’s fundamentally why inequality is bad. And when you don’t have the focus on that, what’s the point?

If you can give people some sort of control over the lives, that they have more control about what goes on in their workplace, if they have access to what they need in their lives to housing, to healthcare, to food, then, you know, inequality starts, you know, losing importance with, and, you know, fundamentally when you get to the end point, when money can’t, you know, buy control over someone else’s life, which is fundamentally what, you know, the radical aim, the radical goal is then, you know, inequality of money isn’t that different.

If all I can buy with money is just some extra goods and services and not more of the basic necessities of life or not of, you know, the standard version of it, it starts to really lose its importance. So, I mean, you know, the guy I mentioned, JW Mason, Josh Mason, from John Jay School of School of Criminal Justice, he mentions that, you know, the ultimate goal as a leftist should be getting to the point where, you know, quantitative comparisons of different, different people’s lives, isn’t possible and doesn’t, or doesn’t matter because, you know, because people have access to what they need and money can’t buy control.

(…)