Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.”

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

The title indicates an evolution which in the prevailing idiom of economics would not be possible. One does not develop an economic system from a dogma, depending to some extent on how one chooses to define dogma. What is more, anyone who is familiar with Juan Donoso Cortes (1809–1853), the man who first designated solidarity as a dogma, knows that he was a political philosopher. And anyone who is familiar with Heinrich Pesch, the man who first outlined a system of economics which he called Solidarism, knows that he was a Jesuit priest, Now while Jesuits and political philosophers, especially Spanish Roman Catholic ones, probably have something to say to each other, what would the likes of them have to do with a value‐neutral science?

Since the first Volume of this Bibliography there has been an explosion of literature in all the main areas of business. The researcher and librarian have to be able to uncover specific articles devoted to certain topics. This Bibliography is designed to help. Volume III, in addition to the annotated list of articles as the two previous volumes, contains further features to help the reader. Each entry within has been indexed according to the Fifth Edition of the SCIMP/SCAMP Thesaurus and thus provides a full subject index to facilitate rapid information retrieval. Each article has its own unique number and this is used in both the subject and author index. The first Volume of the Bibliography covered seven journals published by MCB University Press. This Volume now indexes 25 journals, indicating the greater depth, coverage and expansion of the subject areas concerned.

This paper aims to review the undergraduate curricular structure of 36 self‐identified heterodox economic programs in the USA, Australia, UK and Canada.

The author gathers, summarizes, compares and contrasts the structure of 36 undergraduate heterodox departments. Departments are classified into traditional, plausibly pluralistic, and demonstrably heterodox programs. Specific examples illustrate each classification.

With notable exceptions described here, most heterodox economics programs are structured as traditional mainstream departments with a few pluralist or political economy electives available. However, 20 departments exist that require at least one heterodox course; eight require two or more.

A few programs have created imitable curricular structures that one would expect to significantly influence the depth and breadth of heterodox perspectives presented in the undergraduate economics major.

This is the first published analysis of undergraduate heterodox economics curricula. It highlights the creative structures characterizing some of the English‐speaking world's best programs and demonstrates that the curricula in most programs lack required courses in heterodox economics. The paper also provides examples of intentionally heterodox programs that may serve as models for others to emulate.