Search results

Western economics came into being with the rise of the capitalist market economy. It had a nature of duality beginning from its birth: the justificativeness of providing theoretical pillars for the capitalist market economy system and the scientificity of revealing the internal relations and operating rules of the capitalist market economy. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

However, after the 1830s, this justificativeness gradually evolved into vulgarity. Since the 1930s, modern western mainstream economics has mainly explored the general market economy on the assumption that the capitalist system remains unchanged, and many outcomes of such research are positive and beneficial.

Political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, at the present stage, is mainly a Chinese socialist market economics. It is guided by the Marxist political economy and rooted in the great practice of China’s reform and opening up and socialist modernization.

According to political complexion, western economic theories can be divided into political economic theory, mainstream economic theory and basic economic theory. By subjecting these theories to what we term “elimination,” “transformation” and “transplantation” surgeries, respectively, we can absorb and accommodate their beneficial elements in building a political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which in turn is conducive to the development and prosperity of such an economy.

The core of the micro–macro paradigm of mainstream Western economics is the assumption that a rational economic man with complete freedom of economic behaviors living in a fully competitive, free-market economy pursues maximum personal benefits. The purpose of this paper is to show the reasons for failure of mainstream Western economics explaining the “mystery of China’s economic growth” and the necessity of understanding the mystery from the paradigm of realm economics.

The system of socialism with Chinese characteristics led by the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the local governments that play a crucial role in the reform and opening-up has the realm attribute. It is necessary to develop a new paradigm for realm economic analysis and promote the creation of new economic globalization and international political and economic order.

According to the fourth plenary session of the 19th CPC Central Committee, “Since the New China was founded 70 years ago, our Party has led our people to create the rarely-seen miracle of rapid economic development and miracle of long-term social stability”. The authors find that it is effective and necessary to explain the miracle of China’s economic growth from the paradigm of realm economics.

As proven by practice, the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the governance system of China are guided by Marxism, rooted in China with a deep Chinese cultural foundation, and sincerely supported by the people.

The last 200 years, roughly from the publication of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in 1776 to the present, have witnessed a remarkable, systemic drive for the globalization of Western capitalism. The intellectual origin of this drive has been mainstream economics which has capitalised technology, labour, environment and other productive resources; in practice, these resources have been harnessed by aggressive capitalists [originally called adventurers, forerunnes of today's multinational corporations (MNCs)] in a worldwide search for profits. This drive has enriched the West but not the vast majority of humanity.

The socialist construction with Chinese characteristics must be based on history and reality. According to the requirements of liberation and development of productivity, efforts must be made to reform and improve the production relations, as well as continually consolidate the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. The purpose of this paper is to prove the necessity and superiority of a socialist system through China’s modernization achievements.

Marxist political economics is a critical legacy from classical economics. Its core question is also social production and distribution, which is epitomized in the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value.

Regarding the significant principles that must be followed, these speeches summarized the logical system and prominent features of the socialist political system in the new normal from several significant and interrelated aspects such as basic methods, core propositions, main tasks and fundamental goals.

The socialist system with Chinese characteristics will gradually appear through further research and prove its superiority. How can a socialist system with Chinese characteristics innovate and develop? Does the system have a future? Is there any historical necessity for the socialist system to replace the capitalist system in human history? These are the questions that need urgent answers and in-depth exploration.

As the crystallization of Chinese wisdom and the shared wealth of all humanity, the Socialist Political Economy with Chinese Characteristics (SPECC) not only reveals the specific traits of SPECC but also indicates the general rules of the global economic development, showing both nationality and internationality. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Being aware of the nationality of the SPECC is of great importance. It requires to integrate the basic Marxist principles with the realities of China, and meanwhile draw lessons from, not just simply copy, the strengths of other countries. The authors must adhere to the basic principles of the SPECC.

From the perspective of past practices, the SPECC has not only provided theoretical guidance for China’s reform and development, but has also given references to some countries, especially developing countries under reform and transition.

SPECC should be based on China’s conditions and practices, absorb China’s traditional cultural essences, draw lessons from other nations’ positive theoretical and practical results, propose theoretical viewpoints independently and initially, and construct a distinct academic system and discourse system. In this way, China would work to develop the characteristics and advantages of the SPECC, and contribute Chinese wisdom to the development and improvement of world economics and economics theories.

The purpose of this article is to put forward China’s Hanyu Pinyin word guanli as an academic basic term to the world.

GUANLI as an academic basic term, which holds multiple meanings of several English words, such as management, administration, governance, etc. As a basic term, GUANLI, derived several words, such as GUANLIOLOGY, GUANLIST/GUANLIER and GUANLIWORK/GUANLIJOB, to precisely and exactly convey the Chinese GUANLI ideas. It is the historical mission and opportunity for the authors to research and establish the Chinese School of Modern GUANLI Science (CSMGS).

It is inevitably necessary to build the combined Chinese–Western discourse system of GUANLI science (CCWDSGS). Some other research results of CSMGS are also presented in this paper.

It is needless to say that there are still lots of problems in China, including in the GUANLI field. These problems will gradually be solved in China’s reform and development that takes place continuously. New problems will come up while old problems are being solved and settled; problems producing in a loop, problems solving in a loop, this is the dialectics. The authors have full confidence in solving problems, as well as in China’s development and future.

Practice comes first and then it is followed by theory. The authors first have the “China Model”, followed by the “Chinese School” consequently. The “China Model” has already been there, and the “Chinese School” relies on the author’s proactive research and innovation. It is just the right time for the authors to study and create the CSMGS. This is the historical mission and opportunity awaited by contemporary Chinese.

Tremendous challenges face those charged with reconstructing the economies and workforces of the formerly Communist Eastern European nations. The temptation is great to apply proven Western European and American models to the problem. There are clear dangers in doing so if an attempt is made to “force‐fit” such models on economies and enterprises very different from those in the West. Research and practice in change management principles clearly point to practices, such as high involvement and participation by local workers and managers in rebuilding their own companies, that are essential to success. These may be overlooked, or ignored, in the rush to “fix” Eastern European economies. A balance between a sense of urgency and sound management and leadership practices must be taken. Most important, nothing must be done that undermines Eastern Europeans′ opportunity to practise democratic ideals and be directly in charge of their own density.

The proportional distribution of social labor is a general law governing human social and economic activities, also a law discovered by Marxist political economy that governs socialist economic operations and development based on public ownership.

This law draws on Marx's vision of future society, but how it is adopted is not only subject to the way a country's economy interacts but also to the influence of a country's historical and cultural traditions. Generations of the CPC and state leaders since Mao Zedong have made unremitting explorations for its application.

As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters a new era, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at the core adheres to the standpoints, viewpoints and methods of Marxist political economy, draws from the splendid Chinese traditional culture that values integrity, peace and harmony of all, builds on the reality of China's socialist market economy development, has summed up the features of socialist economy development with Chinese characteristics, and has proposed the five-sphere integrated plan, the four-pronged comprehensive strategy.

The new development concept of “innovation, coordination, green development, openness, and sharing” for socialism with Chinese characteristics, all reflecting the Party's deepening understanding of coordinated development, the gradual formation of the general thought and policy methods of the country's economic regulations based on the coordination and balance of economic structure, the continuous explorations to open a new chapter of contemporary Marxist political economy, China's experience and wisdom, and the Party's confidence in the theories it applies, the road it takes, its system and its culture. The coordination and balance of economic structure are a major theoretical innovation of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics in the new era.

Using the United Nations’ definition of least developed nations, examines the socioeconomic situation of the least developed Pacific island nations, namely the Melanesian countries – the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, the Polynesian countries – Samoa and Tuvalu, and the Micronesian country – Kiribati, and critically discusses the type of development policy advice given to these nations by Bretton Woods’ institutions and their “relatives”. Suggests that the emphasis of these institutions and many donor countries on the desirability of business‐led development, structural adjustment policies and the globalisation of these economies has paid insufficient attention to the cultural background, institutional and other constraints encountered by these economies and may have added to political instability in this region, as well as the occurrence of poverty and growing inequality. A different set of policy proposals would have emerged if greater account had been taken of the general views of Myrdal rather than relying almost exclusively on the neoclassical economic paradigm. This is especially unfortunate because severe poverty (even more so than in much of Asia) exists in several of these least developed nations e.g. the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

Different from Marx's analysis of the dialectical relationship between the production and realization of surplus value, the Okishio theorem only shows one aspect of the contradictory movement of the total social capital, that is, the reverse effect of the realization of surplus value on the production of surplus value.

The production of surplus value and the realization of surplus value are simplified into one process. This simplification eliminates the contradiction between the production and realization of surplus value, and the antagonistic contradiction between accumulation and consumption and the antagonistic production-distribution relationship in capitalist society are naturally covered up.

Therefore, it cannot explain the actual expansion way of the falling general rate of profit as the historical development law of capitalism. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Okishio theorem places the analysis of the general rate of profit back into the social reproduction model with department equilibrium, which points out the significance of wage income to the realization of surplus value and outlines the macro mechanism of the realization of surplus value reacting to the production of surplus value. It also strongly promotes the research progress of the law that the profit rate tends to decline.

The mistake of the Okishio theorem is that the exchange process in the labor market forms the real wage rate. It determines the production price of wage goods, which thereby determines that the production price of capital goods and general rate of profit, the production of surplus value and realization of surplus value are simplified into the same process, and only the value that can be realized is the real value.