That conclusion would be to confuse the concepts of subset with superset.
Just because some characteristic (X) is exhibited by Y does not mean that thing X is an exclusive property of Y. A cat being a mammal doesn’t mean all mammals are cats and just because MMT illustrates some mechanics of economic statecraft does not mean those mechanics are exclusive to MMT.
Keynesian economics also illustrates some useful methods of state intervention which Marxists can and have studied but that doesn’t logically follow to mean that to utilize those methods, you then need to adopt Keynesian economics. In fact, this is the same kinda of “gotcha” that Keynes used to do to “dunk” on Marxist economics: “My Keynesianism already accounts for these forms of state intervention so if you practice these forms, you’re actually doing Keynesian economics, not Marxism!”
All its valuable observations about the mechanisms of state economy can already be derived from pre-existing schools of thought, including Marxist economics as the article’s analysis shows. His assessment notes that MMT provides no special conclusions which cannot be reached through a “non-MMT” Marxist economic assessment. As the article observed, Marx himself already assessed in his own time that:
“money in capitalism has three main functions: as a measure of value; as a means of exchange; and ‘money as money’ which includes debt payments. Marx’s theorisation of money as a measure of value derives from his labour theory of value; and this is the main difference between Marx and the Chartalists/MMT supporters, who have no theory of value whatsoever. In effect, for MMT exponents, value is ignored for the primacy of money in social and economic relations.”
The basic errors of MMT are what the article attributes to its intellectual lineage from the 19th century economic theories of Proudhon, who Marx himself refuted in words that can directly be pointed against MMT, its contemporary descendant:
For Marx, ‘the doctrine that proposes tricks of circulation as a way of, on the one hand, avoiding the violent character of these social changes and on the other, of making these changes appear not to be a presupposition but gradual result of these transformations in circulation’ would be a fundamental error and misunderstanding of the reality of capitalism.
In other words, separating money from value, and indeed making money the primary force for change in capitalism, fails to recognise the reality of social relations under capitalism and production for profit. Without a theory of value, MMTers enter a fictitious economic world – one where the state can issue debt and have it converted into credits on the state account by a central bank at will and with no limit or repercussions in the real world of productive capital
To summarize, MMT’s purpose is to repackage Marx’s “measure of value” and ship it out as an “independent unit” while kicking the corresponding Marxist theory of value under the bed while exclaiming, “Eww, we don’t need that,” which is exactly what its Keynesian predecessors did. Through this, it embodies a literal half of Marxist economics with the other half cleaved off through its disdain and/or ignorance of the necessary dialectical analysis that formulated Marx’s own conception of monetary function.
In the past, the purpose of Keynesian economics was to borrow one half of Marxist economics to prevent the other half’s realization: that is, to prevent any consideration of class conscious economic analysis. Similarly, MMT plays the same role, which is both why its value to Marxists is minimal - having itself derived from Marxist thought on the measure of value - and why it is fundamentally adversarial to Marxist economics through its ignorance of the theory of value.
Through that, I will say this: if there ever comes a day where the material conditions of contemporary capitalism deteriorates to that of the mid 20th century post-Great Depression era, mechanisms along the lines of MMT will absolutely be adopted, just as FDR’s New Deal and Keynesian economics were, to prevent the alternative of socialism from being truly considered by the people. Just as that moment proved the true antagonistic and adversarial character of Keynesian economics to socialism, so too will MMT drop the “cousin to Marxist economics” act in order to shut the door to the choice of socialism.
That conclusion would be to confuse the concepts of subset with superset.
Just because some characteristic (X) is exhibited by Y does not mean that thing X is an exclusive property of Y. A cat being a mammal doesn’t mean all mammals are cats and just because MMT illustrates some mechanics of economic statecraft does not mean those mechanics are exclusive to MMT.
Keynesian economics also illustrates some useful methods of state intervention which Marxists can and have studied but that doesn’t logically follow to mean that to utilize those methods, you then need to adopt Keynesian economics. In fact, this is the same kinda of “gotcha” that Keynes used to do to “dunk” on Marxist economics: “My Keynesianism already accounts for these forms of state intervention so if you practice these forms, you’re actually doing Keynesian economics, not Marxism!”
All its valuable observations about the mechanisms of state economy can already be derived from pre-existing schools of thought, including Marxist economics as the article’s analysis shows. His assessment notes that MMT provides no special conclusions which cannot be reached through a “non-MMT” Marxist economic assessment. As the article observed, Marx himself already assessed in his own time that:
The basic errors of MMT are what the article attributes to its intellectual lineage from the 19th century economic theories of Proudhon, who Marx himself refuted in words that can directly be pointed against MMT, its contemporary descendant:
To summarize, MMT’s purpose is to repackage Marx’s “measure of value” and ship it out as an “independent unit” while kicking the corresponding Marxist theory of value under the bed while exclaiming, “Eww, we don’t need that,” which is exactly what its Keynesian predecessors did. Through this, it embodies a literal half of Marxist economics with the other half cleaved off through its disdain and/or ignorance of the necessary dialectical analysis that formulated Marx’s own conception of monetary function.
In the past, the purpose of Keynesian economics was to borrow one half of Marxist economics to prevent the other half’s realization: that is, to prevent any consideration of class conscious economic analysis. Similarly, MMT plays the same role, which is both why its value to Marxists is minimal - having itself derived from Marxist thought on the measure of value - and why it is fundamentally adversarial to Marxist economics through its ignorance of the theory of value.
Through that, I will say this: if there ever comes a day where the material conditions of contemporary capitalism deteriorates to that of the mid 20th century post-Great Depression era, mechanisms along the lines of MMT will absolutely be adopted, just as FDR’s New Deal and Keynesian economics were, to prevent the alternative of socialism from being truly considered by the people. Just as that moment proved the true antagonistic and adversarial character of Keynesian economics to socialism, so too will MMT drop the “cousin to Marxist economics” act in order to shut the door to the choice of socialism.