Search results

Henryk Grossman was the first person to systematically explore Marx’s explanation of capitalist crises in terms of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall and to place it in the context of the distinction between use and exchange value. His “The Law of Accumulation and Breakdown of the Capitalist System” remains an important reference point in the Marxist literature on economic crises. That literature has been plagued by distortions of Grossman’s position which derive from early hostile reviews of his book. These accused Grossman of a mechanical approach to the end of capitalism and of neglecting factors which boost profit rates. Grossman, in fact, contributed a complementary economic element to the recovery of Marxism undertaken by Lenin (particularly in the area of Marxist politics) and Lukács (in philosophy). In both published and unpublished work, Grossman also dealt with and even anticipated criticisms of his methodology and treatment of countertendencies to the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Far from being mechanical, his economic analysis can still assist the struggle for working class self-emancipation.

With the process of continuous specialisation within economics and with its incessant subdivision into different schools, the practitioners of the discipline are becoming more and more alienated from each other. The need and opportunity to communicate are disappearing. When a dialogue takes place, one side is often unable to hear the other. And even when the other side is heard, it is simply not understood. No attempt is made to explain the causes of such compartmentalisation among economists. Rather, the aim is to underline the three non‐ideological consequences of specialisation within the economics profession. The effects of a mutual misunderstanding are: (1) various names are used to define the same concept; (2) the same name is employed to describe different notions; and (3) the relative character of a given approach is not recognised. Several examples are utilised to underscore the major points. It is concluded that, unless generalisation supersedes fragmentation, no coherent picture of the economic world is possible.

As there are different interpretations of the object of study in the preface to the first edition of Capital (Volume I) by Karl Marx, disagreements arise over the object of study on political economy, which becomes a “difficult problem.” The purpose of the paper is to bring a new solution to the “difficult problem.”

Based on the analysis of the logic of the original text, the authors attempted to give a new interpretation of the “difficult problem” by analyzing the structure of Capital. The object of study of political economy is “the relations of production in the broad sense” of the capitalist mode of production.

It comprises relations of production in the narrow sense and exchange relations in the broad sense, and the latter can be divided into exchange relations in the narrow sense and distribution relations. The three of them correspond to Volume I, II and III of Capital, respectively. Consumption in “the four-section theory” is not studied by the political economy.

And the four-section theory is not a part of the theory of Marxist economics but a part of the classical economics criticized by Marx. Therefore, the object of study of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics is “the relations of production in the broad sense” regarding the socialist mode of production with Chinese characteristics, which is different from the capitalist relations of production in the broad sense.

Marx suggested that it is infeasible and wrong to arrange the economic categories according to the order by which they have worked in history. Their order is determined by their interrelationship in the modern bourgeois society, which is in contrast to their natural sequence or that which is in accordance with the course of history. Sometimes, a logical sequence is precisely opposite to the historical sequence. There are many efforts to be done in the study of China’s economic and social issues with Marxist logical and historical methods. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

When reading Das Kapital, we can clearly see the historical materialism methods. Another method of Marxist political economics is the scientific abstract method.

This is based on the new development idea to carry out scientific and technological innovation and change the focus of development from quantity to quality. With regard to the supply side structural reform as the main focus, people’s ever-growing demand for a better life can be satisfied and the higher level dynamic supply–demand balance can be kept.

In fact, measures to remedy unbalanced and inadequate development of the social principal contradiction have been plainly indicated in the report delivered at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. This is based on the new development idea to carry out scientific and technological innovation and change the focus of development from quantity to quality.

The chapter presents a short biography of Kalecki, from his early years in Łódź, through his economics research and development of his theory of business cycles, participation in the Keynesian Revolution and work after the Second World War on the economics of socialism and the developing countries. The key role of capital accumulation (investment) in determining levels of employment and total output is put forward as Kalecki's main innovation. There are evident similarities between Kalecki's theory of the business cycle and that of the Austro-Marxist Emil Lederer, as well as in the distributional analysis of Rudolf Hilferding. Kalecki's analysis of monetary circulation, and the centrality of his theory of profits was anticipated by Rosa Luxemburg in her Anti-Critique. But that monetary theory is rooted in a Marxian understanding of money as a means of settlement between capitalists.

This chapter challenges the denial of “underconsumption” – the role of consumption demand in capitalist reproduction and its paucity in crises – in contemporary Marxism. At stake are better understandings not only of crisis theory but also, inter alia, of imperialism, “reformism,” and Marx's intellectual legacy. The chapter shows how the centrality of consumption demand is underlined in the three volumes of Capital and the Grundrisse, and goes on to discuss the origins, weaknesses, and persistence of this denial. The chapter also shows that Marx did not regard underconsumption as a moralistic argument about unfulfilled need. The denial originates not in Marx but in productionism, the idea that capitalism is a system of “production for production's sake.”

Originating in the overkill of Tugan Baranowski's refutation of the Russian populists’ view that capitalist development was impossible in Russia due to lack of a home market, productionism is based on his attempt to force Marxism into the marginalist and the general equilibrium framework. Despite its antipathy with Marxism, most contemporary Marxist economics are based on it. Inevitably its adherence to Say's Law – the denial of the possibility of gluts in the market – infects the tendency to assume that capitalism's contradictions do not lie in circulation. Productionism's denial of the importance of consumption demand also rests on nonsequiturs, nondialectical thinking, and an underestimation of the contradictions in capitalism Marx identified, other than the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The chapter ends by showing the centrality of demand in the recent historical evolution of capitalism as reconstructed by Robert Brenner, followed by a discussion of whether underconsumption is “reformist.”

In the past 70 years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, China’s economic studies have been constantly centered on major issues such as national modernization, social economic development and the establishment, reform and improvement of socialist economic system. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

It has experienced a process of transition from the establishment of traditional Soviet’s paradigm of political economics to that of modern economics, during which drastic changes have been observed in various aspects of China’s economics, including research content, scope and methods.

Based on that, a discipline system of economics in line with international economics has been initially established. Currently, under the guidance of Marxism, scholars in China’s economics actively draw on the beneficial knowledge system and analytical methods from modern economics, emancipate their minds, seek truth from facts and constantly fortify confidence in the socialist path, theory, system and culture, continuously enhance the discourse power of China’s economics in global economic governance system, so as to push forward to the building of a theoretical system of socialist economics with Chinese Characteristics in the new era.

Economics is a discipline that studies resource allocation and human’s behavior of making a choice based on rationality. Emerged in the industrial revolution and developed in the exploration of a large-scale socialized mode of production and resource allocation system, this discipline has gradually become a broadly explanatory force in social sciences which profoundly affects the economic decision-making behaviors of the government and various economic entities.

This paper aims to establish a theoretical framework that can comprehensively explain the executive compensation in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) within the context of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

The author develops a theoretical framework for executive compensation in SOEs from the perspective of Marxist economics and points out that the executives in SOEs are engaged in management labor, and their compensation should adhere to the principle of distribution according to labor contribution.

Based on this theory, the author posits that the continuous upward trend of executive compensation in SOEs, is consistent with the trend of SOEs' ongoing expansion, which reflects a continuous improvement of SOE executives' management labor in both quality and quantity.

It is necessary to start with Marxist economic theory and scientifically study the issue of SOE executive compensation, adhere to the principle of distribution according to work in the context of a socialist market economy and implement the specific guideline of the Party Central Committee; only in this way can the long-term healthy development of SOEs be promoted continuously.

Weber's hypothesis about China is the hypothesis forwarded by Weber that why capitalist production did not appear in eastern countries such as China in the first place. Weber considered that the reason may be Chinese Confucianism and Taoism lack protestant ethic like Western countries.

The clarification has aroused wide discussion, meanwhile, East Asian capitalism belonging to the Chinese cultural circle has successfully refuted Weber's proposition. Chinese scholars have a broad debate around this topic while no agreement has been reached. This paper tries to explain Weber's hypothesis by Marx's theory of capital origin, which can be explained that the landlord economy caused by China's federal society under centralism leads to the result that the commodity of labor cannot exist in that environment.

The answer from Marxist economics has not only solved an enormous theoretical problem, but also it has vital practical significance. It easily clarifies the fact that the commodity of labor in full sense still cannot emerge in China nowadays, which is an important reason causing China to enter the New Normal and New Era.

Therefore, it leaves China the only way of the socialist road with Chinese characteristics and revitalizing China's rural economy, which means China can only promote rural industrialization and urbanization under the principle of adhering to rural collective ownership, while implementing various forms of integrated agricultural and industrial business models based on local conditions.

As a crucial institutional form established since the Chinese economic reform, the system of competitive local governments has been shaping the characteristics of China's socialist market economy to a considerable degree.

This study not only adopts the view of existing studies that attribute the economic motive of local governments to rent and consider land public finance as a means through which local governments carry out strategic investment but also attempts to further develop the view within a Marxist analytical framework.

As a result, the local governments have helped to maintain an incredibly high investment rate over a considerable period of time, facilitating the continuous, rapid growth of the Chinese economy.

This study concludes that China's local governments function as the productive allocator and user of rent in the strategic investment based on land public finance and thereby embed themselves in the relative surplus-value production initially arising from competition amongst enterprises, forming the dual structure of relative surplus-value production unique to China's economy.