Chris Dillow — Job Guarantee: Marxist or Keynesian?

Must-read.

What we have there, then, are two different conceptions of a JG. On the one hand, it might be a policy which helps capitalism function better (Keynes). But on the other, it might be a form of transitional demand – a policy which whilst fulfilling human needs is one that cannot actually be sustainably adopted by capitalism and is instead a stepping stone towards socialism (Marx).

I’m honestly not sure which it is.

I would not put it in terms of capitalism and socialism but rather forms of capitalism and socialism and their interaction.

A JG is incompatible with capitalism as private control of the means of production, that is, both classical liberalism as laissez-faire and neoliberalism as government policy favoring capital (and rent-seeking), unless the JG is transformed into workfare (as CD observes).

On the other hand, a JG is compatible with social democracy as a modification of capitalism (Keynes), democratic socialism as as form of combined public and private control that eliminates economic rents, and socialism as public control of the means of production. A JG is irrelevant in the case of pure communism, where all able to worker contribute their work and its output to the society and are compensated according to needs.

Capitalism should not be confused with markets. Markets are compatible with socialism that is not purely communistic, where "from each according to one's abilities and to each according to one's needs" is the foundational socio-economic principle (Marx and Engels).

The trend was from classical liberalism, to social democracy, to neoliberalism. The next stage in the dialectic is to be determined. China is proposing socialism with Chinese characteristics and recommending socialism with the local characteristics to the rest of the world in a new multipolar world order that replaces current Western liberal hegemony.

There are essentially five major forms of political organization on the table, excepting traditionalism, which I discuss separately. Starting from the right side of the political spectrum and moving left:

• Fascism. Or corporate statism. See Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism. 
• Capitalism as neoliberalism (Hayek) and classical liberalism (Rothbard) and ordoliberalism (Freiburg School). 
• Mixed Economy (Keynes, European social democracy, and ordoliberalism). 
• Socialism (See Wikipedia, Types of Socialism)
• Communism (Marx & Engles, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Xi)

This is not a linear progression, since fascism and communism meet in state control under the supposedly temporary dictatorship of the proletariat that never progressed beyond dictatorship.

While Traditionalism is generally not considered as a major influence on political theory now, it is coming to the fore again:

• Islamic law and its concept of social justice is spreading 
• Catholic social teaching is being revived by Pope Francis
• Traditional Russian Byzantine (Orthodox) culture is being promoted under Vladimir Putin
• Traditional Chinese culture, especially Confucianism, is being rehabilitated after Mao by Xi Jinping
• PROUT or Progressive Utilization Theory is based on Indian Vedic tradition. 

So making the choice between Keynes and Marx may be somewhat simplistic and fall into the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, arguing in terms of black or white when there are many shades of grey.

In my view, the MMT JG is step away from neoliberalism in the direction of social democracy and a mixed economy. But it has further implications if implemented with other aspects of MMT socio-economic policy based on SFC modeling and functional finance, where makes room for a much more active use of fiscal space while providing a rationale for understanding the potential of it. So while a JG is "Keynesian," there is more to than that, as Chris Dillow senses. But it is not necessarily "Marxist" either.

Stumbling and Mumbling
Job Guarantee: Marxist or Keynesian?
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle