Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:57:43.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Keynes and Proudhon1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Dudley Dillard
Dudley Dillard
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the beginning of the world-wide depression of the 1930's thewritings of J. M. Keynes have furnished the chief stimulus for serious discussion of economic policy and economic theory. There is implicit in the Keynesian position an interpretation of capitalism strikingly similar to that of P. J. Proudhon, the French socialist of the nineteenth century. Yet whatever similarities there are between the economic ideas of Keynes and Proudhon must be explained by time-separated reaction to more or less comparable problems. The only formal linkage between the two theorists would be their relations to Silvio Gesell, the stamped-money reformer. Keynes expresses admiration for the fundamentals of Gesell's work, and Gesell in turn avows himself a disciple of Proudhon. Keynes's agreement with Gesell is not confined to matters of technical theory, but extends also to the social premises of the work of that “strange, unduly neglected prophet…whose work contains flashes of deep insight and who only just failed to reach down to the essence of the matter.”He characterizes Gesell's work as “anti-Marxian socialism,” asserting that “the future will learn more from the spirit of Gesell than from that of Marx.” Since Marx made a bitter attack on Proudhon, and since Gesell declares himself a disciple of Proudhon, Keynes's references to the superiority of Gesell over Marx suggest important relations between Proudhon and Keynes.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , May 1942 , pp. 63 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Cf. Gesell, Silvio, The Natural Economic Order, Money Part (San Antonio, Texas, 1934), “Introduction.”Google Scholar

3 Keynes, J. M., General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (New York, 1936), 353–358, 379.Google Scholar Cf. also 32, 371.

4 Ibid., 353.

5 Ibid., 355.

6 In the Poverty of Philosophy, written by Marx in answer to Proudhon's Philosophy of Poverty.

7 Cf. esp. , Fan-Hung, “Mr. Keynes and Marx on the Theory of Capital Accumulation, Money and Interest,” Review of Economic Studies, VII (10, 1939), 28–41. AlsoGoogle ScholarAlexander, S. S., “Mr. Keynes and Mr. Marx,” Review of Economic Studies, VII (02, 1940), 123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 The Natural Economic Order, 3 (italics supplied).

9 General Theory, 353.

10 , Proudhon, Oeuvres completès (Paris, Brussels: Lacroix, 1867–1876), VI, 115Google Scholar.

11 Specie would have been used only for small change.

12 “Ce n'est pas le capital lui-mëme, mais la circulation du capital…qui au fond constitue toute la matière de la science économique…” Oeuvres complètes, XIX, 216.

13 Proudhon's writings are replete with apologies and explanations of his famous phrase. Cf. for example, Correspondence (Paris, Lacroix, 1875), II, 296.Google Scholar Cf. also Oeuvres completes, VI, 148; Oeuvres posthumes (Paris, Lacroix, 1866–1875), I, 204–205.Google Scholar Nearly all students of Proudhon are agreed on this important point. Cf. Hubert Bourguin, Proudhon (Paris, 1901), 189–190;Google ScholarMenger, Anton, The Right to the Whole Produce of Labor (New York, 1899), 76Google Scholar; Brogan, D. W., Proudhon (London, 1934), 27Google Scholar; Saltau, Roger, French Political Thought in the Nineteenth Century (New Haven, 1931), 270–272;Google ScholarGide, Charles and Rist, Charles, A History of Economic Doctrines (New York, n.d.), 293Google Scholar.

14 General Theory, 378.

15 Ibid., 376, 378.

16 Ibid., 376.

17 For an excellent statement by Keynes of the way in which the novelty of his position is based on his theory of interest, see his article, “A Self-Adjusting Economic System?” The New Republic, LXXXII (02 20, 1935), 35–37. See alsoGoogle Scholar“The General Theory of Employment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, LI (02, 1937), 209–223.Google Scholar For Proudhon's claims concerning the merits of “constituted value,” see his System of Economical Contradictions (Boston: Tucker, 1888), Vol. I, Chap. IIGoogle Scholar.

18 Oeuvres complètes, XIX, 287.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid., XIX, 288.

21 Economical Contradictians, I, 291 (Proudhon's emphasis).

22 Oeuvres complètes, XIX, 267.

23 General Theory, 111.

24 This is Hawtrey's characterization of the central thesis of the General Theory. Cf. Capital and Employment (New York, 1938), 230Google Scholar.

25 General Theory, 376.

26 Oeuvres complètes, XIX, passim, esp. 217, 291.

27 General Theory, 213–217.

28 Ibid.

29 On Keynes's views, see his article “The Question of High Wages,” Political Quarterly, I (01, 1930), 110–124; and hisGoogle Scholar“Am I A Liberal?” Essays in Persuasion (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1932), 323–338.Google Scholar On Proudhon's views, see Oeuvres complètes, VI, 91–94, 98–99, VII, 195.

30 Cf. Rowse, A. L., Mr. Keynes and the Labour Movement (London, The Macmillan Company, 1936). Cf. alsoGoogle ScholarLerner's, A. P.review of the General Theory in the International Labour Review, XXXIV (10, 1936), 435–454Google Scholar.

31 General Theory, 17. Logically, this is a consequence of Keynes's acceptance of the principle of diminishing returns in the short run.

32 Ibid., 13,14,40.

33 Cf. Diehl, Karl, P. J. Proudhon, Seine Lehre und Sein Leben (Sammlung Nationalokonomischer und Staatswissenschaftlichen Seminars zu Halle, edited by DrConrad, Joh.), VI, 45Google Scholar.

34 Of course any favorable influence from a wage-rate reduction must be more than sufficient to offset the unfavorable influence on the marginal propensity to consume.

35 General Theory, Chap. XIX.

36 Ibid., 267.