Search results

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

Extensions/applications/revisions of the Marxian vision of socialism can broadly be categorized into two polar strands: the centralized and the decentralized strands of socialist economic systems. Explores the main postulates of a decentralized version of a socialist economic system as provided by Kautsky, Luxembourg, Bernstein, Bukharin and Lange. The centralized strand of socialist economic systems has been elaborated drawing mainly from the writings of Lenin, Trotsky, Dobb, Sweezy and Baran.

This article investigates the intellectual roots of perestroika. Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, the architect of perestroika claims that his programmes and policies are aimed at a revolutionary transformation of the Soviet economy from an overly centralised command system of management to a democratic system based mainly on economic methods and on an optimal combination of centralism and self‐management. To facilitate the restructuring process, Gorbachev simultaneously initiated two sweeping political reforms: glasnost (no “radical change is possible without it”); and demokratizatsiya (”there is no present‐day socialism, nor can there be, without democracy”). Therefore, prominent features envisaged by perestroika would presumably include: an optimal combination between centralism and self‐management, that would imply decentralisation in the economic management of the country; replacement of administrative methods by economic methods, that would emphasise economic incentives and market processes more than machineries of central planning; democratisation and openness in Soviet society, aimed at guaranteeing greater democratic rights for citizens, and pluralism in governmental and political processes.

Analyses the economics of socialism within the Marxian tradition. The ideas of Marx and Engels are included, as are those of the theorists of the Second International. The debate on market socialism associated with Oskar Lange also receives attention. The evolution of Mises′s and Hayek′s responses is traced, and there is an outline of how economists in Eastern Europe have come to similar conclusions to these Austrians. Concludes with an assessment of the economics of socialism in the work of contemporary theorists.

Here Marx's philosophy is dissected from the angle of bourgeois capitalism which he, Marx, sought to overcome. His social, political and economic ideas are criticised. Although it is noted that Marx wanted to ameliorate human suffering, the result turned out to be Utopian, contrary to his own intentions. Contrary to Marx, it is individualism that makes the best sense and capitalism that holds out the best hope for coping with most of the problems he sought to solve. Marx's philosophy is alluring but flawed at a very basic level, namely, where it denies the individuality of each person and treats humanity as “an organic body”. Capitalism, while by no means out to guarantee a perfect society, is the best setting for the realisation of the diverse but often equally noble human goals of its membership.

The purpose of this paper is to explore which socioeconomic and institutional factors are responsible for different societies’ ideological choices, with reference to Marxist socialism. Which factors led to the rise of the popularity of socialism? And which factors made a socialist variant relatively more successful in one society but not the other, with social democracy and communism being the focus of the study?

Conducting a global theoretical and empirical study on the period between the late 1890s and 1945. The theoretical part discusses various perspectives presented in the literature, accounting for the works of major sociologists (e.g.: M. Mann, Lipset) and political theorists (e.g.: Marx, Engels, Lenin). The empirical part uses a number of OLS multivariate panel regressions using voting to various socialist movements as dependent variables, and socioeconomic and institutional factors as independent variables.

Some of the findings of the conducted empirical study are that: democracy, industrialization, high population growth rates, low linguistic or religious homogeneity, more years of schooling and less years since independence or creation increase the social democrat (SD) vote. The communist vote was affected positively by more urbanization; higher population growth; less years of schooling; more years since independence; recent experience of war; and the presence of insignificant religious minorities. Inequality seemed also to have been a strong significant factor for raising the popularity of various socialist parties, especially when countries were long-established or created. Countries which had a fresh experience with war devastation or which were highly urbanized while having higher levels of inequality witnessed an increasing vote share for the communists. More votes went to SD; however, when inequality existed in highly industrialized countries. High GDP growth, matched with higher inequalities, did not seem to have encouraged voting for various socialist parties, and even affected the communist vote negatively.

There were data limitations on the available proxies.

This study suggests welfarism, public spending on education, social inclusion and democratization as remedies for radicalism, regardless of the ideological origins of such radicalism.

Its novelty is attributed to the deep analytical dimension for the issue done here, combining theory, an empirical study made possible by the newly available rich historical data.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the French Revolution in Russian intellectual life. One could even make the claim that the French Revolution has had a more significant impact on modern Russian history than it has had upon modern French history! Indeed, since the end of the nineteenth century, the French Revolution has become passe in France in the sense that no Frenchman has looked at it as a blueprint for current political development. While there have been cases in which some of the old revolutionary images were invoked to bolster support for certain political activities (such as support for the war against Germany), it has never been wholeheartedly re‐embraced and there has been a sense of detachment about the revolution, a sense that modern conditions were somehow different.

Provides an overall assessment of problems and prospects for socialism (at a time of the abolition of the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and creation of a new “Commonwealth of Independent States”) by examination of three central themes. First, it is shown that because the old Soviet regime departed substantially from the classic conceptualizations of socialism, its demise does not demonstrate a “failure” of socialism or a “victory” of capitalism. Second, dissolution of the old regime does demonstrate serious problems in the actual, over‐centralized, authoritarian, state‐directed Soviet economy. Third, partly because of the confusion between an authentic socialism and the actual Soviet regime, prospects for socialism seem very slim. But socialist ideals of democracy and equality are deeply embedded in the popular psyche and will continue to affect the character and pace of social change.

Documents and notes the specific content of Marx′s postulate (in the original German edition of Das Kapital, 1867) that “der Mensch von Natur...ein gesellschaftliches thier ist”. All the prominent English editions (unlike the French, Russian, Italian and Spanish versions examined) except one omit the “by nature” qualifier. Suggests reasons for and the significance of this critical and essentially mysterious omission.

Gorbachev′s vision of democratic, decentralised and market‐oriented socialism has generated diverse and controversial perceptions in the Soviet Union. Gorbachev′s claim that the USSR is not retreating from socialism but advancing towards it, having dismantled the Stalinist Command model, is assessed.