Marxist Economic Theory Research Articles

Where Has Marxism Gone? Gauging the Impact of Alternative Ideas in Transition Bulgaria

Marxism dominated in Bulgaria for more than forty years until 1989 and then completely vanished from the public discourse within several years. Where has it gone? The present article addresses this question by noting that even if they are out of the public discourse, remnants of the previously dominant set of ideas should still be found in people’s thinking. It illustrates this general argument by outlining how the survival into post-communism of a pillar of Marxist economic theory—the labor theory of value—can explain several significant discrepancies between facts and perceptions, called the “experience gap,” shown to exist in Bulgaria at the beginning of the twenty-first century. On the other side, the presence of the experience gap in Bulgaria is a factor influencing the availability and the choice of policy options. Thus, the Marxist labor theory of value continues to live in people’s minds and still shapes today’s Bulgarian reality.

Did Hilferding Influence Schumpeter?

In this paper, the origins of some of Joseph Alois Schumpeter’s views are traced back to Rudolf Hilferding’s Finance Capital, regarding the Schumpeterian hypothesis and the separation of roles between capitalists, entrepreneurs and managers. After a careful examination of Hilferding’s writings, the conclusion may be drawn that Schumpeter expresses ideas very similar to Hilferding’s, and seems to have been influenced by his conceptualisation of a ‘latest phase’ of capitalism, shaped by the structure of the ‘monopolistic enterprise’. Hilferding’s approach is understood in this paper as a major revision of Marx’s conceptual understanding of the capitalist mode of production and, therefore, as a ‘paradigm shift’ within Marxian economic theory.

JUSTIFICATION, SKEPTICISM, IRREVERENCE: OR WHY SCIENCE IS DIFFERENT FROM FAITH AND RHETORIC

1. Introduction When I grew up, in second half of last century, two sets of statements below would be considered common knowledge. 1. Scientists justify their claims by means of logic and systematic observation. They do not take anything on faith. They are skeptical towards their own claims and always ready to re-examine them. If a justification fails they abandon their claims, or clearly mark them as mere speculative possibilities. They avoid vagueness and abhor contradiction. They are irreverent to authoritative views. They define their terms and employ mathematics to achieve maximum clarity. Etc., etc. 2. Religious scholars, mystical philosophers, and ideologists of all kind take their claims on faith. They cannot and do not want to justify them either logically or empirically. To convince others, they use rhetorical eloquence, coercion, and brainwashing instead of justification. They are insensitive to contradiction and thrive in vagueness. They defer to authority. Etc., etc. Now, presently defunct country where I grew up had an official ideology variably called Marxism-Leninism and dialectical and historical materialism. Even as a young boy I knew that of two sets of statements above, this ideology conformed squarely to second. But I also knew that it was using all those devices--rhetorical eloquence, coercion, and brainwashing--to convince people it fit within first category, as the only scientific ideology. Later on, still young but no longer a boy, I had occasions to talk to some orthodox and not-so-orthodox Marxists, mostly professors at my university. I formed an impression that those of them who were sophisticated scholars and at same time seriously believed in dialectical and historical materialism (because many merely pretended they did to earn their bread and butter), clearly understood that it did not conform with above-given Set of Statements 1. One group of them believed, however, that Set of Statements 1 does not characterize science either, that these statements were but obsolete remnants of Enlightenment era. Scientists too take a lot of things on faith, they would say. Just think of axioms in mathematics. They too defer to authoritative views. They too violate logic or disregard systematic evidence when it does not suit prevailing paradigms (a translation of Kuhn's book had just appeared and, as everywhere else in world, was enthusiastically used to support all kinds of views disparaging science). In short, dialectical and historical materialism had right to be vague, self-contradictory, and empirically unfounded, because so was everything else--from physics to biology to psychology. The second group did acknowledge difference between science and dialectical and historical materialism, but maintained that science represented merely a limited perspective, just one of many ways of acquiring truth. Philosophy was supposed to overcome these limitations, propose alternatives to dogmatic confines of logic and empiricism (dialectics being one such alternative). I will label these two positions as you-too position (nobody is perfect) and different but equal position (you say pot[ai]to, I say pot[ah]to). As one can easily surmise, nature of two positions was such that their respective adherents did not consider them incompatible, and in fact readily borrowed each other's arguments (when, for example, asked how surplus value could be a cornerstone of Marxist economic theory if latter did not provide a common measure for two quantities whose difference surplus value was purported to be; or whether there was a principled way of distinguishing Newton's mechanics from physical views of a toddler, or Darwin's theory from Biblical account of biological creation). Both you-too-ists and different-but-equal-ists delighted in finding historical examples (which history indeed provides in abundance) when scientists were grossly wrong, dogmatic, dishonest, or ideologically partisan. …

Louis Zukofsky in Kentucky in History

Louis Zukofsky's epic poem, A , is typically regarded as either a modernist collage poem or a postmodern poem that problematizes that view. This essay considers these interpretive paradigms as it elucidates the work's "Kentucky" theme. Zukofsky visited Kentucky in 1963 and subsequently alluded to the state in A 14 and A 18. Allusions to Kentucky emphasize Appalachian culture and economic deprivation. The poem presents Chester Cornett (an eastern Kentucky chairmaker whose nonutilitarian approach to craft caused him to be considered more of an artist than a craftsman) as an example of the validity of Marx's economic theory and Spinoza's ethical philosophy. In the end, the poem's assertion of totalizing views of history mark it as modern, while its complementary vision of aspects that such theories leave out mark it as postmodern.

Marxian economic theory and an ontology of socialism: a Japanese intervention

The most enduring aspect of the economic studies of Marx is the exposition in Capital of the inner anatomy of capitalism as the limit form of what a human society should not be—that is a commodified society which abdicates the responsibility for the reproduction of human material existence to something that transcends human force. Deriving from this perspective on Capital is the position that socialism, at least in its most fundamental incarnation, should not be considered as being institutionally prefigured by capitalism, but as the antithesis of capitalism in that regard. Given such an understanding of socialism, I derive three core principles of what I call an ontology of socialism from Marx's work in Capital. I then briefly outline what adherence to the principles implies for the issues of calculation, motivation and discovery in the construction of a genuine socialism.

Communications

CommunicationsDavid Laibman, David M. Kotz and Sid ResnickDavid Laibman1. Program in Economics, Graduate School, City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, New YorkSearch for more papers by this author, David M. Kotz2. Economics Department and Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, Thompson Hall, AmherstSearch for more papers by this author and Sid Resnick3. 230 Treadwell St., #602, HamdenSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:June 2005https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.66.3.381.21017PDFPDF PLUS ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations AboutReferencesDevine , Pat. 2002. “Participatory Planning Through Negotiated Coordination.” Science & Society, 66:1 (Spring), 72–85. Link, Google ScholarEllman , Michael. 1979. Socialist Planning. London: Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarKotz , David M. 2001. “Is Russia Becoming Capitalist?” Science & Society, 65:2 (Summer), 157–181. Link, Google ScholarLaibman , David. 1984. “Modes of Production and Theories of Transition.” Science & Society, 48:3 (Fall), 257–294. Republished as chapter 13 in David Laibman, Value, Technical Change and Crisis: Explorations in Marxist Economic Theory. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1992. Google ScholarLaibman , David. 1992a. “Market and Plan: The Evolution of Socialist Social Structures in History and Theory.” Science & Society, 56:1 (Spring), 60–91. Republished as chapter 16, “Toward a Working Theory of the Socialist Economy,” in David Laibman, Value, Technical Change and Crisis: Explorations in Marxist Economic Theory. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1992. Google ScholarLaibman , David. 2001. “Contours of the Maturing Socialist Economy.” Historical Materialism, 9 (Winter), 85–110. Crossref, Google ScholarLaibman , David. 2002. “Democratic Coordination: Towards a Working Socialism for the New Century.” Science & Society, 66:1 (Spring), 116–129. Link, Google ScholarIs Russia Becoming Capitalist? ReplyBulavka , Ludmila, Jakob Keremetsky, and Emil Roudik. 2000. Russia 2000: Protest Workers' Movement. Moscow: Economic Democracy. Google ScholarKotz , David M. 2001a. “The State, Globalization, and Phases of Capitalist Development.” Pp. 93–109 in Phases of Capitalist Development: Booms, Crises and Globalizations, edited by Robert Albritton, Makoto Itoh, Richard Westra, and Alan Zuege. Hampshire (England) and New York: Palgrave Press. Crossref, Google ScholarKotz , David M. 2001b. “Is Russia Becoming Capitalist?” Science and Society, 65:2 (Summer), 157–181. Link, Google ScholarKotz , David M. 2002. “Globalization and Neoliberalism.” Rethinking Marxism, 14:2. Crossref, Google ScholarHarold Cruse's Attack on Jewish Communists: CommentCruse , Harold. 1967. The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual: From Its Origins to the Present. New York: William Morrow and Company. Google ScholarEngels , Frederick. 1942. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence, 1846–1895. New York: International Publishers. Google ScholarHughes , Langston. 1956. I Wonder as I Wander. New York: Rinehart. Google ScholarKutzik , Alfred J. 1994. The Communist Party and the Jews: Implications for the National Question. New York: Red Balloon Collective. Google ScholarLenin , V. I. 1974. Lenin on the Jewish Question. Edited by Hyman Lumer. New York: International Publishers. Google ScholarWald , Alan. 2000–2001. “Narrating Nationalisms: Black Marxism and Jewish Communists Through the Eyes of Harold Cruse.” Science & Society, 64:4 (Winter), 400–423. Google Scholar Previous article Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Cited byCited byDavid Laibman1. Theory and Necessity: The Stadial Foundations of the PresentOnline publication date: 19 July 2005. Go to citation Crossref Volume 66Issue 3Sep 2002 Information© Guilford Publications Inc.PDF download

Rising ‘Material’ vs. Falling ‘Value’ Rates of Profit: Trial by Simulation

The ‘temporalist’ or ‘temporal single system’ (TSS) school of Marxist economic theory insists that, when capital stocks are valued at historical cost, capital accumulation as such must cause the ‘value’ rate of profit to fall, even while the ‘material’ rate rises. This claim fatally ignores the depreciation and scrapping of fixed capital. Simulation modeling reveals that once early vintages of capital goods and their associated labor forces and output are scrapped, the average productivities of labour and capital follow their latest-vintage equivalents upward, and the ‘value’ rate of profit follows the same course as the ‘material’ rate. ‘Temporalism’ thus fails to serve as an adequate foundation for the theory of capitalist accumulation and crisis.

The market and exploitation in Marx's economic theory: a reinterpretation

Adopting the view that Marx's notion of 'commodity' has a wider reach than is usually supposed, and that it is this notion, rather than a 'labour theory of value' that is the cornerstone of his economic theory, this paper shows that Marx's account of capitalist exploitation is one that accords equal priority to the production and market domains. Central to this demonstration is an unorthodox explanation as to why Marx posits two alternative rules of prices in Capital.

New Investigations of Marx's Method

The contributors to this stimulating collection of thoughtful essays examine the philosophical principles and logical structure underlying Marx's economic theory in Capital. The essays deal with many methodological issues including: the meaning of dialectic logic, the relation between Marx and Hegel, the historical specificity of Marx's concepts, the emphasis on social forms, the commodity as the starting point of Capital, the theory of money, the distinction between capital in general and, competition, and Marx's critique of bourgeois economics.

Heterodox Economic Theories: True or False?

Introduction - appraising heterodox economic theories, Ian Steedman. Part 1: Sraffian economics and the capital controversy, Ian Steedman comment, Roger Backhouse reply, Mark Blaug. Part 2: radical economics - successes and failures, Michael Reich methodological atavism and radical economics - comment on Reich, Wade Hands reply, Mark Blaug Marx's economic theory - true or false?, Fred Moseley comment, Bruce Caldwell reply, Mark Blaug.

Methodological dualism and the microfoundations of Marx's economic theory

In this paper we argue that in his economic theory Marx employs an Unconventional form of annalytical reductionism in which the single commodity, rather than the individual agent, is taken as the point of departure, and that, through the interplay of the accounts of value and moneyy around the notion of dualism given in the development of the commodity, Marx provides a unified account of the structural and behavioural aspects of economic relations genarally, and of prices in particular. We also suggest that this understanding of Marx's methodological dualism, and his dialectical approach to reductionism, enables us to gain a new insight into the price-theoretic structure of Capital.

Ne Hic Saltaveris: The Marxian Theory of Exploitation After Roemer

In his bookA General Theory of Exploitation and Class(1982) (hereafterGT), John Roemer employs the tools of mainstream general equilibrium and game-theoretic analysis to develop a fundamental critique and broadbased reformulation of Marxian economic theory. Perhaps Roemer's most striking departure from traditional Marxian tenets lies in his explanation of the material basis of exploitation in capitalist economies. Roemer argues that capitalist exploitation must be understood as essentially the consequence of exchange given differential ownership of relatively scarce productive assets (DORSPA). In particular, Roemer concludes that capitalist exploitation does not fundamentally depend on capitalist domination of production, or what Marx termed the subsumption of labor under capital.

On Capitalism and Agrestic Unfreedom

The proposition is not new that the freedom of labour is not a necessary accompaniment of the growth of capitalist production; and that conditions of non-market duress upon labour ranging from outright slavery to indenture and restrictions on mobility have been a typical feature of the world-wide growth of capitalism. Indeed the very title of Eric Williams' seminal book Capitalism and Slavery, which explored the interlinkages between the rise of capitalist manufacturing industry in Britain and the exploitation of the slave labour-based plantation system of the West Indies, exemplified this understanding. Ernest Mandel in his Marxist Economic Theory, which in fact dealt as much with historical description as with theory, also analysed the role of duress in the operation of the colonial system, as did P. A. Baran in his Political Economy of Growth. To the present author who shares Williams's perception, in particular that the colonial system and the later working of imperialism were crucially dependent on the imposition of unfree conditions upon Third World labour (particularly wherever labour migration was induced), Tom Brass's general emphasis on the lack of correspondence between capitalism and freedom of labour seems quite unexceptionable.

The rate of surplus value and crime. A theoretical and empirical examination of Marxian economic theory and criminology

Radical criminology is often dismissed on the claim that it is not empirically verifiable. In this paper we argue that grounding the radical approach in Marx's theory of surplus values creates an empirically testable Marxian theory applicable to understanding rates of criminal offending and official responses to criminal behavior. Our analysis demonstrates that the rate of surplus value is a statistically significant predictor of the rate of property crimes known, property crime arrests, violent crimes known, violent crime arrests and total index crimes known to police in the U.S. from 1950 to 1974 controlling for the effects of predictor variables identified in earlier research on crime rates. The theoretical implications of this finding and the importance of the theory of surplus value to the development of radical criminology are also discussed.

Marx's Economic Theory—Science or Ideology?

The title of this article poses a question that has long excited the world community in connection with the enormous popularity and spread of Marxism. And the answers to this question have been (and are) fundamentally different. Orthodox Marxists were convinced that both science and ideology combined ideally in Marxism. Hence one of the definitions of Marxism as scientific and therefore the only true ideology. Until recently, this was the only possible official party response in our country. In the West, opinions were divided: from total rejection of any manner of scientific content in ideologized Marxism to the recognition of serious scientific elements in Marxism. In the second case, there was the frequent attempt to separate Karl Marx, the major scholar, from Marx, the revolutionary ideologue. Homage was paid to the former, whose "iron logic," "brilliant proofs," and "masterful description of capitalist activity" were recognized. The second image was treated with one or another degree of negativity; it was assigned principal responsibility for the fact that Marx's historical forecasts about the fate of capitalism failed to correspond to actual developments.

Preliminary Plan for Deepening Economic System Reform in 1988 (Draft for Solicitation of Opinions)

Abstract Since the Third Plenum of the Eleventh Central Committee, economic system reform in China has gained great success. Eight years of reform have not only promoted the sustained and stable growth of the economy, the coordinated development of agriculture, light and heavy industry and the first, second, and third industries, improved economic results, substantially increased the country's economic strength, and speeded up the pace of improvement of urban and rural living standards, but these years of reform have also enriched and developed Marxist economic theory.

Marx and Modern Economic Analysis

This ambitious book presents a complete spectrum of interpretations of Marx's economic theory and methodology. Informed by the current debate on the foundations of economic theory, the main emphasis is on analytical and textual arguments to the rigorous exclusion of ‘ideological’ debates. It presents new work by major scholars in the field including amongst others Mark Blaug, Walter Eltis, Samuel Hollander, Bruno Jossa, Giovanni Caravale and Pierangelo Garegnani. The diverse analytical threads are connected to present a coherent picture of some central aspects of Marx's theory. The book will be essential reading for courses on Marxian economics, the history of economic thought, economic doctrines and advanced economic theory.

The ‘second slump’: Marxian theories of crisis after 1973∗

This paper surveys the various accounts offered by Marxian economists for the ending of the long postwar boom. All focus on the decline in profitability, but they offer different expalanations. Three principal categories of crisis theory are distinguished: underconsumption; Marx's ‘Volume III’ falling rate of profit analysis; and several versions of overaccumulation theory, in particular the French regulation school and the North American discussion of the social structure of accumulation. A separate section deals with the relationship between the capitalist state and the crisis. Some general conclusions are drawn concerning the current nature of Marxian economic theory.

Marxism Without Tears: a Review of John E. Roemer's “Free to Lose”

John E. Roemer's Free To Lose* Geoffrey M. Hodgson Newcastle upon Tyne Polytechnic Whatever the details of the verdict, this is a major book. John Roemer here presents a clear summary of his immense analytical scholarship over the last decade. The corpus of this work is impressive in its own right, displaying as it does such great flair and analytical precision, but it is also a significant milestone in the development of both Marxist theory and economics as a whole. Notably, after reaching a postwar peak of popularity and academic interest sometime in the 1970s, Marxist theory has since declined from prominence, partly due, of course, to the changed political climate of the 1980s. However, after the varied and turbulent debates of the 1970s, Marxist economic theory has now been consolidated into no more than two major innovative and developing schools of thought. The first is the regulation school, originating in France and pioneered by Michel Aglietta, Robert Boyer, Pascal Petit and others. Its focus has been on the dynamic, evolutionary and macroeconomic aspects of Marxist and other allied economic theories. The second is the school to which John Roemer has made such a major contribution, perhaps best titled as Rational choice Marxism (Carling, 1986), and including also G. A. Cohen and Jon Elster. It focuses on the analysis of the concepts of exploitation and class, and uses, as Roemer (p. 172) admits, standard tools of microeconomic analysis. Notably, both schools of thought reject much of the invalid Marxist theoretical baggage, particularly in most cases the labor theory of value and the theory of the falling rate of profit. Both schools are innovative and creative, in contrast to the Marxist fundamentalism which dominated many debates of the 1970s. But clearly there is a great divergence here. One group of Marxists reject the validity or priority of the search for sound microfounda tions and concentrate, instead, on macro-modelling in an evolutionary framework. In contrast, for the other group, microfoundations are almost everything, and they are keen to preoccupy themselves with

Book Review: Understanding Capital: Marx's Economic Theory

Book Review: Understanding Capital: Marx's Economic Theory