Sebastien's Reviews > In the Long Run We Are All Dead: Keynesianism, Political Economy, and Revolution

Originally Mann thought he was going to write a book that deconstructed and eviscerated Keynes. As he researched and wrote he shifted more towards an agnostic position (even bit more sympathetic view) on Keynes, although he is certainly still torn in his positioning.

There is a lot to this book and I could write an endless review but I'll try and keep it to the very basics as I understood it. It is wide in scope with an examination that stretches from philosophical, historical, political, economic realms. Densely thicketed at times, but worth the effort and in my view the material is generally quite accessible. Book is framed in 3 parts, with a focus on the precursors to Keynesianism -Pre-Keynesian-, then Keynes, then Post-Keynesianism.
The main analysis of the book is the focus on the crisis of modern day capitalism and the efforts and intellectual frameworks of the liberal reformist Keynes who wished to save it. What crisis-management policy tools should be implemented to avoid potential economic collapse and revolution? There is a lot of discussion on the dynamics between capitalism, the state, the bourgeoisie, the masses, civilization, revolution, and the role of Keynesianism in all this. There is philosophical exploration involving a lot of Hegel which I thought was really fascinating, especially the concept of necessity and the tensions in democracy and capitalism and the role of the state. The concept of how to provide pathways to honor and dignity for those who live in poverty is richly explored. The book features Keynes as critic of the system and yet ultimate believer in the system, desperately wanting to reform it so that it can keep surviving and allowing civilization to thrive.

Keynes was a believer in a technocratic elite, according to him it was this elite that kept the engine of civilization and culture going, the thin veneer of civilization was a crust laying on top of a teeming darkness, and this crust could easily be destroyed by the "rabble." And this isn't to say Keynes did not have sympathy for the masses but he certainly distrusted them and thought they were the potential destroyers of civilization. That's part of the reason he felt society (but most specifically the technocratic elite) needed to find a way to create a framework to make capitalism work for the masses, or at least provide pathways (like decent jobs) so that the necessities and basics of life could be met, otherwise teeming resentment could destroy everything. Misery breeds hate. And then destruction if unchecked. For Keynes one of the main avenues for the technocratic elite to walk tightrope in managing policy was figuring out how to expertly handle the policy levers via the state.

Keynes was a capitalist but recognized dangers of this mode if it was unfettered and rentiers and oligarchy hijacked the system. Without sensible policy/guardrails (implemented via the only entity powerful enough to enact counterbalance, the state) he thought capitalism would/could implode and take everything else down with it. The tension with democracy/capitalism that Keynes seemed to struggle with was fear of tyranny of the masses and fear of tyranny of a rapacious oligarchy whose singular pursuit of profit could spin things out of control and warp the system. And a 3rd fear he recognized was tyranny of the state (he was no fan of the Soviet state which was a good example of this!). So there was potential danger in each element.

A lot of the discussion on Robespierre and the French Revolution revolves around the problem of how to maintain honor/dignity of those in poverty, philosophical analysis of necessity, and also the dynamic of the struggle between the masses and the professional bourgeoisie (and technocrats). Robespierre does provide an example of how dark and off the rails things can go with a revolution, even one founded upon liberal principles (many more examples since then of course), and there is interesting discussion on the two major groups who were the engines behind the French revolution, the masses and the bourgeoisie (each had different goals and vied for power and control of the revolution).

The various interpretations of Keynes are explored. Keynesianism means different things to different people and there are splits and Mann meticulously documents post-WWII Keynesianism and its various branches. I still don’t have a proper enough handle on this to deliver a good summary, so I will need to read more on it. The discussions on the classical economists was also great, especially on Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Malthus. I really should read some of those original texts at some point...

Discussion of capital, capital scarcity, and how too much capital can flatten yields and drive down investment was something I'd never thought about. I don't know too much about this issue but in the text there is mention that there needs to be some capital scarcity to maintain marginal capital yields that are sufficiently strong especially in relation to interest rates. If interest rates are high especially in relation to marginal capital returns there will be less capital investment. This part of the discussion focuses a lot on Piketty and Keynes who had similar interpretations on this issue. I haven't read Piketty but probably will at some point.

Overall this book is a great discussion, interwoven with analysis of political economy, philosophy, tensions in society and the interplay between these various elements. It's one of those books that I think could be enjoyed by those who don't agree with Mann or his ideas, his presentation is interesting and thought-provoking. I could always be wrong about that but given the breadth of analysis I think there is enough here to provide appeal for a diverse audience, although if one is a fan of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism then this book will be a harder pill to swallow and I can imagine this is the one group who will have a harder time appreciating Mann's analysis and will likely contest large portions of it. Even though I’m far from that positioning I'd certainly be interested to hear that critique and how they would interpret this book. I wish there were more reviews of this book, especially outlets like the Financial Times (Martin Wolf for instance) and WSJ, it’d be fascinating to see how they parse this thing.