Diego Guerrero:

Keynesianism is a form of neoclassical liberalism which distinguishes itself from contemporary neo-liberalism by a higher realism regarding the limits of its theoretical analysis of unemployment. However, both Neoclassicals and Keynesians think it possible, after an accurate diagnose of the problem, to find out the appropiate recipees to cure unemployment in the framework of the capitalist system. After reviewing both explanations, a third, heterodox view is offered, according to which the value of the labour force, as that of any other commodity, is determined by its costs of social reproduction (ultimately, in labour terms). This commodity is supplied in the magnitude given by social conditions determining the size of the active labour force. When capital accumulation develops itself healthily, the market labour approaches full employment; whereas after an overaccumulation crisis and depression the demand of labour shrinks, with no possibility for any force-including government policies-to convince the capitalists that they should lose more money by hiring more workers. As long as the economy is based on private profits, it is illusory to hope an end to both a cyclical behaviour of unemployment and a trend towards its long-run increase, as it is the case with any other commodity, ruled by the same "airbag logic". As for the policy implications, my view is that theorists should, beginning with the third approach, redirect their focus from the very limited possibilities of finding out the way to a lower rate of unemployment inside the capitalism, towards the effort to build up an alternative with profits replaced by another engine of the economy. My case is for a simple reform consisting in linking the decentralized and equal "remuneration" to every individual to their status as citizens (not to that of labour suppliers) which amounts to make the labour market unnecessary.