/lit/ - Literature

>>11440874
>>11440851
I know you probably don't give a shit but this constant need to berate the guy gives me the signal that somebody is likely to have not read Marx because for one, I don't think his analysis of capitalism was that contentious, and secondly it has become all too common that people on the internet or even in more professional capacities will completely misrepresent Marx in a way that makes clear they did not read him, but feel the conditioned need to indicate that they know for a fact he is a morally odious character that was actually quite stupid.

I'm not a scholar on Keynes, though I read the General Theory and have a memory of the large strokes of his ideas, like Marx, and I don't know what you mean by him thinking the time-unit was flawed. I searched the GT because I remembered him talking about labor units, and in chapter 4 here he references the labor unit right after discussing how the only way the price level can be made intelligible is if we discuss the amount of labor employed in production. What he says here is a different framing than Marx, but not so much different that I'd consider it justifiable to say "Keynes can be pretty good sometimes, but Marx is a total idiot". They both reconcile specialized labor in terms of unskilled labor units, and the implication of Keynes here is that the equality of labor employed (along with the wage-unit per whatever labor is employed) is what makes production across industries and cycles intelligible. This passage doesn't go into competitive pressures or anything like that, but speaking of labor employed against capital in such a way seems not far from simply saying that the magnitudes of different kinds of production are dependent on how much labor can profitable be employed per unit of capital such that there is growth and reinvestment. That suggests that the lower bound to all of capitalism is the unskilled unit of labor generating more surplus value, more capital.