In the Long Run We Are All Dead: Keynesianism, Political Economy, and Revolution

by Geoff Mann

A groundbreaking debunking of moderate attempts to resolve financial crises

In the ruins of the 2007–2008 financial crisis, self-proclaimed progressives the world over clamoured to resurrect the economic theory of John Maynard Keynes. The crisis seemed to expose the disaster of small-state, free-market liberalization and deregulation. Keynesian political economy, in contrast, could put the state back at the heart of the economy and arm it with the knowledge needed to rescue us. But what it was supposed to rescue us from was not so clear. Was it the end of capitalism or the end of the world? For Keynesianism, the answer is both. Keynesians are not and never have been out to save capitalism, but rather to save civilization from itself. It is political economy, they promise, for the world in which we actually live: a world in which prices are ‘sticky’, information is ‘asymmetrical’, and uncertainty inescapable. In this world, things will definitely not take care of themselves in the long run. Poverty is ineradicable, markets fail, and revolutions lead to tyranny. Keynesianism is thus modern liberalism's most persuasive internal critique, meeting two centuries of crisis with a proposal for capital without capitalism and revolution without revolutionaries. 

If our current crises have renewed Keynesianism for so many, it is less because the present is worth saving, than because the future seems out of control. In that situation, Keynesianism is a perfect fit: a faith for the faithless.


From the Hardcover edition.

Genres: Economics, Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History, Political Science, Biography

416 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2017

Reviews

[Sebastien · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Ellison · Rating 5 out of 5]

‘What causes “poverty in the midst of plenty”? Why, “despite an excess of wealth,” is civil society “not wealthy enough”? What is to be done about those the system produces and then disavows - the rabble, the involuntarily unemployed? Modernity has generated the most productive societies the world has ever known, historically unprecedented abundance. How is it possible that we remain not wealthy enough?’

‘The trouble lies in the fact that in a “modern society” the political so easily gets contaminated by leakages from what Keyne’s called the “economic problem” and Arendt called the “social question”: poverty.’ This trouble can be overcome only if we can ‘deliver sufficient honor to the impoverished that they can be reliably depended upon to “consent to be poor.”’

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

All in all a very refreshing look on the philosophy behind economics.

In the beginning the book tends to go offroad with occasional mentions of 'western hegemony', 'neocolonialism' and other conspiracy theories which put me off a little.

After that he luckily goes back to discussing Keynes and the worldview of contemporary economics, the so called "liberal paradigm". Especially his part on the absurdity of the homo economicus that is used as basis for many economic models was striking and apt.

Mentions of Kant, Hegel and Marx are strewn around freely with varying success (or perhaps I didn't get everything he was trying to say).

But this book definitely took me a few steps back so I could observe the Political/Economic manifestations of our time outside the general framework drawn up by Politicians/Economists.

[Tristan · Rating 5 out of 5]

this book changed the way I think about many things, but chief among them liberalism - it provides the most honest assessment of the way that tradition understands capitalism that I've ever come across. it draws a red thread through moral philosophy, political thought, and economics, providing analyses of key thinkers in a tradition within liberalism that Mann calls Keynesianism, a cautious, apprehensive, and always realist perception of the way that liberal civil society operates on a knife's edge, walking an endless tightrope over the churning sea of "the rabble," the advances of western civilization, forever tied up in capitalism, always at risk of the latter's whirlwind of destructive and disequilibriating tendencies.

on a more concrete note, the book opens rather technically - dealing with Hegel's political philosophy - and closes much the same - dealing with Kalecki and Hicks-Hansen's more mathematical economics. mild familiarity with both german idealism and indifference curves may help you here.

i cannot recommend this book highly enough. no matter your political leanings, you will find something in here worth taking home.

[Max · Rating 5 out of 5]

Until [we can tell revolutionary histories differently], at least in the part of the planet with "something to lose", Keynesianism always appears the more "realistic" proposition.

A dizzying and exciting work. Geoff Mann draws a series of unexpected and truly brilliant connections across economics, history, philosophy... A "Marxian-Gramscian critique" of Keynes, in Mann's own words, but so much more wide-ranging than even a project that broad implies.

[Stanisław · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very stimulating read.

Mann (re)reads Keynes's "General Theory" as a political manifesto of what he calls a "Keynesian critique" of capitalism, an orientation he traces back in figures such as Hobbes and Hegel and which today is represented by - among others - Thomas Piketty. At the core of this worldview lies the fundamental belief that modern, liberal society sows seeds for its own distruction. Hegel's confilct between the particular and universal and Keynes "composition fallacy" are for Mann essentially the same thing. What binds these two thinkers even more is their relation to masses and revolution, which can never be a successful event. Masses themselves are not able to overthrow the liberal order that renders them poor and unemployed and therefore excludes them from the "community of the free", the burgeois civil society. The revolution they seek to achieve is always destructive, yet - in principle - justified, since it is the imperfect system that is to blame for their miserable condition rather than the poor themselves. Just as Keynes debunks the neoclassical myths of unemployment as always "voluntary" (due to workers' reluctance to accept lower real wages which interrupts the working of Say's law), Hegel also debunks one-sided kantian ethics which underestimate the role of Notrecht - the material necessity, that "knows no law" and threatens the social order with revolution.

Mann engages with many different critiques of keynesian policies and thought stemming from more radical leftist thinkers (e.g. Negri) and manages to explain the "knee-jerk" resort to them in the times of crisis, as they are indeed an indispensible component of modern liberalsm. They enable us not so much to save capitalism from itself, as is often said in relation to Keynes, but rather to save the burgeois civilisation from existential threat to its stability which stems from it's central conception of freedom.

[Jooseppi Räikkönen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is maybe my fourth or fifth time reading this book (not including random late evening nibbles of my favourite chapters). Yet I still lack the words to describe how good it is. I really think this is the best book I know.

[Alex T · Rating 5 out of 5]

its insanely good. you gotta read it

[Brendon.goodmurphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Keynes understood that liberal (Laissez Faire - today neoliberal) capitalism always inherently produces mass poverty, steep inequality, and popular discontent. People eventually refuse to tolerate this and look for a way out. In this book, Mann tries to show that Keynes was never a defender of liberal capitalism - he set out to critique it. But for Keynes, the alternatives to which the masses turned for salvation were just as ugly - revolution in it's communist or fascist form. Mann draws parallels here between Keynes' political economy and the philosophy of Hegel, which was a direct reaction to the French Revolution. Mann argues that Hegel was the original Keynesian - aghast by the inhumanity of liberalism, but also the terror of revolution. While Keynes and Hegel are both sympathetic to the conditions that lead the masses to choose such self-destructive alternatives, Mann insists that at the heart of Keynesianism is a deep distrust of the masses.

Keynes' solution? This is where Mann's critique of Keynes rests. Rather than accept the inherent politics of economics, Keynes reaches for a depoliticized solution. Just hand the management of the economy over to a bunch of educated, supposedly 'unbiased' technocrats, who will do their best to make the inevitable poverty caused by liberal capitalism more 'honorable' (tolerable). Mann argues that fundamentally, Keynesianism is antidemocratic. He insists that the Left keeps turning to Keynesianism in moments of crisis, though, because the Left similarly distrusts the masses/democracy, and has embraced elitist, technocratic solutions to material insecurity.

I don't know enough about Keynes to say whether Mann is right or not. Surely Ann Pettifor disagrees. In the Production of Money, she argues that Keynesian economics is the exact opposite - an attempt to democratize the economic. But Mann goes to great lengths to show that Keynesianism is a big tent, and that not everything we associate today with Keynes (the welfare state) can fairly be traced back to his actual writings. Nonetheless I found Mann's argument to be interesting and a refreshing critique of Keynesian economics, if somewhat convoluted and unnecessarily complex.

Still, the book left me feeling pretty hopeless. One gets the sense that Mann is concluding here that any attempt to change or improve the society we currently live in (which is unquestionably liberal capitalism), only reinforces and strengthens the grip that capital has on us, and therefore the dynamics that create mass poverty, inequality and unrest. I came to this book after reading Brett Christophers' Rentier Capitalism, which I found much more hopeful - that the problem is specifically the rentier form of capitalism and the monopoly it creates, and that we can actually do something about it. Like most Leftist critiques of capitalism, Mann doesn't offer any solutions. The critique is supposedly enough to give us hope. I still don't know that that might be.

[Caleb · Rating 3 out of 5]

"In our own twenty-first century moment, the effusive embrace of Piketty indicates that anxious Keynesianism is alive and thriving. Modern political economy has always been Keynesian in this sense: haunted by the memory of revolution and upheaval, and thus by a consciousness of the menace of popular rejection of the existing order, but convinced the right tax tweak or policy fix has the capacity to put off disaster so we can focus on economic bliss once more."

The term 'tour de force' is overused, but appropriate in this case. Mann does what few have done (a symptom of our know-nothing know-it-all age?). He actually read Keynes' "General Theory." The result is a deep and impressive intellectual history of Keynes and Keynesianism, from the French Revolution to the present (it makes sense!). Even though I'm not entirely on Mann's ideological plane, the scholarly insight on display here is thrilling to read. He articulates the intellectual roots and operating assumptions of Keynesian technocracy in a way that resonates with our populist present, in which the "'universal class' of enlightented technocrats" has less popular legimacy than at any time since the 1930s and is grasping pretty baldly for power to save us from the 'rabble.' In fact, reading this book during the recent US election was a lot of fun. It is an important book to think alongside, wherever you come from.

Mann seems like the kind of open, honest, and humane thinker who is becoming increasingly rare in contemporary academia. He writes with verve and enlivens politicial philosophy to make it deeply pertinent.

[Jordan Ecker · Rating 4 out of 5]

I both am and am not persuaded by this book's central thesis. It's right that Keynes is about attempting to save capitalism from itself by isolating politics from economics in order to control each (I am not sure that the basic reason for this is because 'poverty has no proper place' but that's more a quibble); but I am not persuaded that this places Keynesianism outside the liberal tradition or that Hegel is best understood as a kind of Keynesian avant la lettre. Instead, I think this vision of the state, piloted by technocratic liberals who know that civilization = capitalism, was central to the emergence of Capital. The central lesson of Adam Smith is that the interest of uppercase C Capital is not shared with lowercase c capitals, each of which fight for policies that restrict trade in their particular favor (mercantilism). For Capital to develop, then, a statesman enlightened by political economy must fight to direct society towards the natural path of Capital -- a natural path which exists only as an abstraction -- and away from the petty selfishness of actually-existing capitals. Anyway. An intriguing, provocative book.

[Spoust1 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book does three things: first, it places Keynes‘s views of capitalism within a broader historical context, which most notably includes Hegel (the first Keynesian, says the author); second, it provides a detailed but easily digested account of Keynes’s main ideas, based on a close reading of his original texts, and, finally, it develops a left critique of Keynes — basically, the view is that Keynesians are concerned about social disorganization and distrustful of mass movements in such a way as to be ultimately undemocratic — while also opening up the radical left to an informative critique from the Keynesian perspective.

[Grant Black · Rating 5 out of 5]

“When I began this project many years ago, I planned to write a Marxian–Gramscian critique of Keynes’s resurrection in the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008. What I found in the writing, however, was the reluctant, even repressed, Keynesian in myself. And yet I would argue that in the end, I have in fact written a Marxian–Gramscian critique of Keynesianism through political-intellectual history. It is not the radical destruction of Keynes I planned it to be—far from it. But it is, or is intended to be, an attempt to make Keynes our Hegel, and through Keynesianism to understand the operation of a remarkably robust, immanent critique of modern liberal capitalist “civilization.””

[Robert S · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the long run we may all be dead but in the meantime it is a worthwhile venture to read Mann's book about Keynes. While the book's foundation is Keynesianism, Mann ends up deleving into so much more including a philosophical discussion involving Hegel.

Some of the other reviews on Goodreads write extremely well about the book (including stirring my interest) so I'll just add my two cents that it's worth reading.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Mann, like Keyness, is an Aristocrat. Mann might not have the polish or the high manners of Keyness, but his leisure life is supported by the serfs who pay taxes to give Mann the good life, and some time later an excellent pension plan so he won't have to hold a honest job. And the rest is also in sync: give him more power and he will deliver heaven on Earth in due time.

[Charlie Sanjaya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably the best book I have read this year. This book doesn't only explain important Keynesian concept that we routinely misunderstood but also an urgency to go beyond Keynesianism by understanding Keynesianism itself.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good read. It comes from a more "left" perspective and that is how it analyzes Keynes. It has a long history on Hegel which I found very interesting. Overall, it is a good (if long!) read.

[justn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I expected more or less a straightforward critique of The General Theory but instead discovered a great portrayal of Keynesianism as immanent critique of liberal capitalism, with some great questions on why "everyone is a keynesian in a foxhole" and what that means for the revolutionary left

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite brilliant in parts. Compelling and convincing as a political biography of "Keynesianism" The conclusion baffled me though.

[Bryan McMahon · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible exegesis of Keynes and his critique (and restructuring) of liberalism capitalism

[Chris Saltmarsh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant new perspective on Keynesianism in theory and history

[Violeta · Rating 4 out of 5]

comprehensive account of capitalism's disasters and evolutions

[Gerardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very provocative and extremely helpful. A great entrance into a smart understanding of the history we are all living. While I have some background in social theory (Marx especially for this book) and economics (exposure to mainstream thought, critical work in inequality, and general economic history), Mann provides synthesis, insight, and critique with a personal voice I found to be compelling. The right book for these post-recession and post-Keynsian times, I highly recommend it. Certainly one of the best non-fiction books I've read in the past 10 years.

[Sephie · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this text, Mann provides a unique "genealogy" of Keynesianism as a political philosophy and approach to political economy. To him, Keynesianism is perched on the precipice between liberal principles of freedom and the popular demands of subsistence/necessity, and its primary concern as a political philosophy is saving civilization from the tensions that liberal civil society endogenously produces (whether that be absolute poverty, unemployment, or inequality - as well as the attached crises). It is therefore a reluctant but immanent critique of liberalism in theory and practice, in that it produces its own self-destruction. He traces this content from Robespierre to Hegel, then to Keynes himself, and then onward into its successors (post-Keynesians, new Keynesians, and beyond).

Mann's case is persuasively built, argued from a clearly careful engagement with the source material of Keynes' collected works. Furthermore, the final chapter is a fabulous piece of writing, touching on a really serious "crisis" within a global left that more and more, seems to have lost the battle and lacks a strong vision of a way out. Despite the breadth of problems and dearth of answers, Mann does not want to lapse into excusing the current capitalist/imperialist world-system, and Keynesianism's redemption of that system by extension. He merely wants to provoke serious critical thought by recognizing the limitations that the Keynesian worldview, more widespread than one might realize, has imposed on our political project. Mann's writing in general is excellent, accessible enough for a cursory reader but packed with rich detail for those familiar with the material. I learned quite a bit about Hegel through this text, maybe even more than Keynes in specific.

That does point to one factor that weakened my engagement, however: the book is so stuffed with content it becomes exhausting. Mann is to be commended for his rich understanding of the history of political and economic thought, incorporating insights from over three hundred years of "both" disciplines (if they can truly be regarded as distinct - Keynes might object!). But that saturation with allusions to all kinds of Marxist, liberal, and Keynesian theory can become rather wearing, especially when Mann starts repeating himself (the thesis is laid out early on and isn't strongly contestable except on semantic grounds). The only other issue is that in its third part, a lot of the economic content (from Stiglitz/Shapiro and Piketty especially) becomes rather obfuscatory. The sections on The General Theory are so effectively explained that it was odd how impenetrable these dry economic sections became towards the end of the book.

Aside from those minor quibbles, I'd have to give a strong recommendation, especially for those who are familiar with and interested in the history of political and economic thought, and want an innovative approach to the discipline(s).

[Olan McEvoy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked this book up after previously reading Mann’s book written with Joel Wainwright on the climate crisis “Climate Leviathan”, which I found to be interesting but not entirely convincing. I definitely had a similar reaction to this book, as while I find Mann to be a very enjoyable writer with a massive knowledge of fields as varied as political economy, philosophy and geography, I can’t say I was entirely convinced by the book.

Mann provides a left critique of Keynesianism which, while being critical of the basis and effects of Keynesian economics and policies, is more sympathetic than you would initially think. Essentially Mann describes Keynes’ project as motivated by a “dialectic of hope and fear” about the future of civilisation and that this search for security and order in the face of chaos is part of all Keynesian outlooks. This broad idea allows Mann to classify not just the usual schools of thought that came after J.M. Keynes as Keynesian, but also to go back before his time and to even classify Hegel as the original Keynesian in political thought. This post-revolutionary (Mann focuses almost solely on the French Revolution) anxiety that motivated Hegel’s Philosophy of Right is seen by Mann to be the same concern that motivates Keynes’ General Theory. This leads Mann to spend around 100 pages of the book discussing the French Revolution and it’s relation to Hegel’s political though. While his take is interesting and novel, I found it to be a bit of a detour in a book that’s about Keynesianism.

Mann is a very honest and nuanced thinker, which is definitely something to be applauded. He is willing to admit the failures of the left and always points out where left critiques fall short, which for Keynesianism appears to be most of the time.

The book is an easy read, albeit a bit long, and can be quite a nice introduction to ideas which critique one of the dominant forces in our societies.

[Rob Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easily the most intelligent, articulate, satisfying non-fiction book I've read in a long time. Geoff Mann talks about three things in this book: Keynes, Keynes' ideas, and Keynesism. It may surprise you that all three are rather different. But Mann manages to discuss these three in an incredibly accessible and interesting way.

A large section of the book is actually about Hegel and the French Revolution, that Keynes 'revolution without revolution' stems from these two sources. What should be a dry read, is actually a erudite and absolute joy. I studied Hegel under one of my favorite professors in college and he couldn't get the material into my head like Mann can.

This is an excellent, unbiased overview of Keynes. It made me pick up the author's latest book on climate change.