Search results

1 – 10 of 841
To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 7 November 2011

Seongjin Jeong

This chapter attempts an evaluation of Lenin's economic thought from a Marxian standpoint. This chapter argues that Lenin's reading of Marx's Capital in Development of…

Abstract

This chapter attempts an evaluation of Lenin's economic thought from a Marxian standpoint. This chapter argues that Lenin's reading of Marx's Capital in Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899) was biased toward Ricardian or logic-historical interpretation of value, disproportionality theory of crisis as well as economic determinism, characteristic of the Second International Marxism. While admitting that Lenin overcame economic determinism and reformist politics of the Second International Marxism in his Imperialism (1917), this chapter shows that some essential elements, such as thesis of progressiveness of capitalism, stagiest or typologist conceptions of capitalism, still persisted within and after Imperialism. Moreover, this chapter argues that Lenin's Imperialism cannot be considered as a successful concretization of three latter parts of Marx's plan of critique of political economy in Grundrisse (1857), that is, State (Part 4), Foreign Trade (Part 5), and World Market Crisis (Part 6). This chapter also argues that the ambivalence of Lenin's economic thoughts and incomplete break with the Second International Marxism unexpectedly led to Stalinist thesis of state monopoly capitalism, market socialist ideas, and reformist conception of “varieties of capitalisms.”

Details

Revitalizing Marxist Theory for Today's Capitalism
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78052-255-5

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 July 1992

Geoffrey M. Hodgson

Marx is widely regarded today as an “evolutionary”economist. However, what is clear from a close examination of thewritings of both Marx and Engels is that they did not…

Abstract

Marx is widely regarded today as an “evolutionary” economist. However, what is clear from a close examination of the writings of both Marx and Engels is that they did not actually take Darwin′s theory of natural selection on board. Consequently, if their theory of socio‐economic change is evolutionary, it is not so in a Darwinian sense. Considers the different sense in which the economics of Marx can be regarded as “evolutionary” and the distance between Darwinian and Marxian conceptions of natural or social change.

Details

International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 19 no. 7/8/9
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0306-8293

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 2 September 2014

Gullinee Mutakalin

The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate consumer society through various perspectives. In addition, it applies Buddhist economics as an exemplary model which…

Downloads
14767

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate consumer society through various perspectives. In addition, it applies Buddhist economics as an exemplary model which helps managing consumer society.

Design/methodology/approach

The study started by comparing and contrasting the management of consumption between Mainstream and Buddhist economic. In addition, various perspectives such as Marxian economics, Frankfurt School, sociology as well as social critics are added to comprehend consumer society. Finally, it proposed the practices of Buddhist economics as an exemplary model for managing consumer society.

Findings

The study found that while Mainstream economics focusses on increasing the amount of goods and services, Buddhist economics focusses on converting the insatiable to satiable desires. There are two viewpoints of the interconnected spheres of consumption and production through the evolution of consumerism; a producer-led approach and a consumer-led approach. This polarization presents the debate in a very well-established tension between structure and agency.

Originality/value

This paper proposed an exemplary model for managing consumer society by applying the dialectical relationship of both structure and agency.

Details

Journal of Management Development, vol. 33 no. 8/9
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0262-1711

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 February 1981

Anghel N. Rugina

André Gide's prophetic words during an interview at Karlsbad in 1933: “Hitler represents a delay in the progress of humanity. There will be another peaceful Revolution in…

Abstract

André Gide's prophetic words during an interview at Karlsbad in 1933: “Hitler represents a delay in the progress of humanity. There will be another peaceful Revolution in Spirit — different from Capitalism, Socialism‐Communism and Fascism — which will guide the development of humanity to its right destination.”

Details

International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 8 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0306-8293

Abstract

Details

Documents on and from the History of Economic Thought and Methodology
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-84663-909-8

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 February 1976

ROY H. GRIEVE

These two books reflect very different attitudes to classical economics: O'Brien writes from a neoclassical standpoint, Napoleoni from a Marxist one. Two questions deserve…

Abstract

These two books reflect very different attitudes to classical economics: O'Brien writes from a neoclassical standpoint, Napoleoni from a Marxist one. Two questions deserve consideration. Is anything worthwhile to be gained by devoting attention to the works of the classical economists (and of Marx)? Where, if we do turn to the classics, do they lead us?

Details

Journal of Economic Studies, vol. 3 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0144-3585

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 16 February 2010

Tom Jeannot

The purpose of this paper is to assess Marx's enduring significance in the center of his thought, the first volume of Capital. In Capital and related writings, Marx…

Downloads
2236

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to assess Marx's enduring significance in the center of his thought, the first volume of Capital. In Capital and related writings, Marx systematically works out his theory of value. Although Marx's value theory has been widely thought to be internally inconsistent, the “myth of inconsistency” in reclaiming Marx's “Capital” has been recently refuted by Kliman.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on Kliman's refutation, a logically coherent interpretation of Marx's theory is on hand. The paper therefore aims to bring out the philosophical character of Marx's critique of political economy, to which the terms and relations of value theory are essential. It is rooted in the abiding humanism he first discovered through his critical appropriation and transformation of Hegelian philosophy.

Findings

Following Raya Dunayevskaya in Marxism and Freedom, this paper interprets Marx to have founded a new critical science of society “that was at the same time a philosophy of history.” Hence Marx's use of ontological categories in Capital (“substance,” “essence,” “appearance”) is fully methodologically self‐conscious and deliberate. Categories derived from Hegel's Science of Logic (as Lenin rightly grasped) explain the “bewitched and distorted world” of capitalist social relations.

Originality/value

This paper shows that, thinking historically, Marx works out the “notion” of capital from the standpoint of its negation. As if seen through a camera obscura, capital is the domination of alienated, past, objectified, abstract, and dead labor over living labor power. In conclusion, emphasis is placed on the subjective as well as the objective condition necessary to the revolutionary transcendence of the law of value.

Details

International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 37 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0306-8293

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 10 June 2009

Notes taken and edited by David L. Prychitko

Peter Boettke and I had taken Don Lavoie's graduate Comparative Economic Systems course during the Fall of 1985. Lavoie had just published Rivalry and Central Planning

Abstract

Peter Boettke and I had taken Don Lavoie's graduate Comparative Economic Systems course during the Fall of 1985. Lavoie had just published Rivalry and Central Planning (Lavoie, 1985b) and National Economic Planning: What is left? (Lavoie, 1985a), and was at the cusp of establishing himself as a major player in the comparative systems and contemporary critique of socialist planning literature.1

Details

A Research Annual
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-84855-656-0

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 January 1989

Ernest Raiklin and Ken McCormick

The major reason for the divergence of views regarding thedefinition of productive labour is the fact that the concept is viewedfrom different perspectives. For example…

Downloads
132

Abstract

The major reason for the divergence of views regarding the definition of productive labour is the fact that the concept is viewed from different perspectives. For example, neoclassical economists see a world comprised of atomistic and selfish individuals. In this world, any kind of labour producing any good or service is considered productive if it creates utility for anybody. Marxists, on the other hand, do not reject this broad relationship between labour and utility, but deny that all activities creating utility are productive. Grouping individuals into social classes, Marxists insist that labour is productive only if it contributes to the historical development of the dominant mode of production. In this era, labour is productive only if it generates profits for the capitalist. The two viewpoints do not contradict one another, but actually complement each other. Economic concepts are concrete and thus conditional and relative.

Details

International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 16 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0306-8293

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 10 August 2012

Marilyn Power

The aim of this paper is to review Fred Lee's book A History of Heterodox Economics.

Downloads
16853

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this paper is to review Fred Lee's book A History of Heterodox Economics.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper provides a context for Lee's research within the current debates over the financial crisis, then reviews and evaluates his analysis.

Findings

Lee has provided valuable and almost overwhelmingly meticulous documentation of the struggle to maintain space for heterodox economics within the discipline of economics, beginning before the turn of the twentieth century and continuing into the present. He is most concerned to use this research to formulate strategies to build community among heterodox economists, to provide a strong alternative to mainstream economics.

Originality/value

The author was less than convinced by Lee's suggestion that heterodox economics should emulate a professional model based on publications and citations that bears a striking resemblance to the methods of mainstream economics. That said, the author shares his belief that heterodox economics has important insights to offer economic theory and policy. In all, Lee has provided an important service in his documentation of the rise of heterodox economics as well as the attempts of mainstream economics to marginalize other schools of thought.

Details

On the Horizon, vol. 20 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1074-8121

Keywords

1 – 10 of 841