54
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
54 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15896 readers
294 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Can somebody explain MMT and the controversy here to me? I get it like fundamentally but I don't really get how it functions.
It's not marxism for a start. There are no marxist MMTers: Michael Hudson, Roberts, Wollff, etc. are not MMTers.
From what I understand, MMTers generally posit the problem as primarily ideological rather than class interest which prevents the state from using it's power to help working people. Marxist of course see the state as a tool of class warfare.
For example (again, from what I understand), the Marxist sees the state not having universal employment and states this is to undermine the working class's power. The MMTer see the same phenomenon and says it is because the state doesn't believe it can simply create the currency/capacity to employ everyone.
Therefore, for the Marxist, the MMTer is engaged in a kind of idealism that denies the classed nature of society.
This is probably an oversimplification.
Deleted that because I guess original MMTers were trying for full employment while making the descriptions. I think that disconnect that I mention must be made much more clear though; that monetary policy is only secondarily related to unemployment, and it masks the direct powers that truly relate to unemployment
I don’t think it’s necessarily a Marxist or nonMarxist concept. It basically just points out a huge flaw in the popular understanding of how capitalist economies function. And when you pull on that thread enough it reveals that they’re all predicated on lies. Which in turn reveals the fundamental truth of Marxist class analysis. At least if you’re open to those ideas. I think MMT is fine in that regard, and because it’s never going to be implemented within capitalist governments, it’s useful more as rhetoric than as an actual strategy for change. But I dunno. I’m not into MMT enough to know all the ins and outs.
mmt is beloved by socdems because the implication is usually that we can use the money printer to pay for social programs. and that's an infant leftist fantasy because there's no real democratic control over government spending in the first place. the ruling class isn't going to hand out free money to the rabble for no reason, they're going to enrich themselves. at best you'll get tax cuts for homeowners or something, paid for by dollar imperialism. roderick is right.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. I don't think MMT is necessarily wrong about how money works on a certain technical level. It's just that capitalist states depend on myths about money that are contrary to MMT. So yes, MMT within these states is a fantasy that will never come to be. But understanding why this is the case can be on on-ramp to Marxism for the curious baby leftist.