Search results1 – 6 of 6
The class concepts of economic classes, social classes and political forces all have an important role to play in advancing the theoretical understanding necessary for…
The class concepts of economic classes, social classes and political forces all have an important role to play in advancing the theoretical understanding necessary for achieving progress in the socialist project. The “new class analysis” is a series of attempts made since the 1960s by a number of Marxist writers to orient the political forces of socialists by providing analyses of the changing class structure of the advanced capitalist formations. Many of these contributions have been flawed. An account of class is made which shows the naivety of these views. It is put forward that it is necessary to make use of the three class concepts and that there is no a priori necessary association between the membership of these variously conceptualised groups — they can cut across one another in various ways. Each of the concepts is outlined. In contrast to stock Marxist conceptions, this approach may be more fruitful.
We revisit the model of socialism proposed in our Towards a New Socialism (1993) and attempt to answer various questions that have been raised regarding the connection between our view of socialism and our perspective on capitalism, the process of transition to socialism, the failings of the Soviet model, the relationship between socialism and communism, the role of direct democracy under socialism, and the use of labor-time calculation in a socialist economy. We argue that the contradictions of capitalist property relations, and of the accumulation process on a world scale, are set to present once again the necessity of the abolition of private property during the 21st century, and offer some thoughts on transitional forms that could implement this abolition. We defend the ideas of direct democracy and economic calculation in terms of labor time, and argue that these elements distinguish our proposals from the Soviet model. We trace the demise of the latter both to specifics of the Russian situation and to more general problems of Leninism, notably Lenin’s conception of the council state, and of socialism as a long period during which the productive forces are built up in preparation for an eventual communism.
For Marxists, the present controversies are rooted in Marx's own development and exposition of the labor theory of value, especially its presentation in Volumes I (Marx, 1954 ) and III of Capital. As is well known, in Volume I, Marx begins with his analysis of commodities, emphasizing the role of human labor in both its concrete and abstract aspects, and from that he develops (1) the concepts of (exchange) value, of socially necessary labor time, and of its expression in the form of money and the distinction between value and price; (2) the concepts of capital and of surplus value; and (3) the concept of the commodity labor power. With these concepts, his analysis of capitalist production lays bare the nature of capitalist exploitation and links the phenomenon of profit to surplus value (i.e., the unpaid labor time of productive workers). In Parts I and II of Volume III, Marx, explicitly allowing for the interplay of many different capitals, endeavors to show how surplus value is converted into profit, how the rate of surplus value is converted into the rate of profit, how the general rate of profit is formed, and how the values of commodities are transformed into prices of production. He claimed that the transformation preserved the following equalities: total value=total prices; total surplus value=total profits; and, the rate of profit=the rate of surplus value. Marx's presentation of this material in Volume III is, unfortunately, quite rough, since this material is comprised of manuscripts that he had prepared prior to the publication of Volume I in 1867. These manuscripts were not, however, in a final, finished state, and unfortunately Marx never got around to getting them ready for publication.
The behavioral theory of the firm (BTOF) has been used to explain the research and development (R&D) investment behavior of firms in numerous multi industry studies…
The behavioral theory of the firm (BTOF) has been used to explain the research and development (R&D) investment behavior of firms in numerous multi industry studies. However, their partially contradictory results point to the possible need for a single industry perspective that would reduce heterogeneity of business trends, models and other characteristics. This study aims to test this theoretical assumption within the challenging context of the US pharmaceutical industry.
The research uses data from 20 firms, which number among the largest in the US pharmaceutical industry, over the period 2002-2014. These data are analyzed using fixed- and random-effect panel models.
The findings generally support the need for a thorough understanding of the industry under study and its specific characteristics. The firms analyzed in this research behave slightly differently from theoretical assumptions, and it is argued that this is caused by industry specific factors. Moreover, the use of two separate aspiration measures – for historical and social aspirations – is supported as it provides more in-depth insight into the firms’ behavior.
This paper, which is based on research presented at the 4th International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, represents the first inquiry into the R&D investment behavior of pharmaceutical firms using the BTOF. It also represents an argument for conducting single-industry rather than multi industry studies when using this theory.