Search results

In a series of related articles, several authors argue that the establishment of military superintendency at the US Armories in 1841 enabled Daniel Tyler′s “pathbreaking inspection” in 1832 to exert disciplinary power over labour and stimulate subsequent productivity improvements. In essence, the authors identify a critical event, place it in a Foucauldian power/knowledge framework, and accredit it with major impact on accounting development. A careful re‐examination of archival material discloses, however, that in these “new” histories, factual material is selectively presented and questionably interpreted, apparently to bolster a disciplinary‐based historical viewpoint. Re‐examines letters, documents, and secondary source material and compares this evidence to the factual material presented in the new Foucauldian histories. Arrives at a more traditional interpretation of events at the Springfield Armory, one that minimizes the historical impact of Tyler′s work and West Point trained superintendency. The overriding contention is that the search for an understanding of accounting history should not be driven by a post‐modern theory of social relations.

This paper traces the path of Marxism in the 20th century with special focus upon its place within political economy. It argues that the emphasis upon Marxism as a political economy has been directly connected to movement away from Marxism as a theory of class struggle. It begins by establishing how and why, in Marx’s view, all history is a history of class struggles and integrates this perspective with his work in Capital. It is argued that political economy was one of the things Marx was critiquing and that he was attempting to show political economy to be a product of capitalism rather than seeking to establish a Marxist political economy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine processes of Eurasian integration and the veritable ‘culture war’ between Russia and the West over it, while contributing to the theoretical paradigm of geopolitical economy. This paradigm invites us to consider the multiple manifestations of an emerging multipolar world order while scrutinising the extent to which previously popular approaches to the study of international political economy were themselves enmeshed in projects, the architects of which aspired to global hegemony.

The paper employs critical historicism, an approach in which cultural difference is seen as the sedimentation of historically constituted material and ideational processes and which eschews cultural essentialism and orientalising tropes. It is through this lens that Russian state attempts at normalising Eurasian integration processes are examined.

I demonstrate that Russian state organs and officials, as well as ‘political technologists’ attempt to de-politicise processes of Eurasian integration by appealing to both the logic of cultural/civilisational compatibility of affected parties, as well as the logic of economic integration. Such portrayals invite scrutiny; however, it is important that we also consider how Eurasian integration initiatives are the product of a post-Soviet struggle over Eurasian space but represent something more than mere neo-Soviet revisionism.

The paper demonstrates its originality by situating ongoing processes of Eurasian integration within the longer post-Soviet conjuncture and amid processes of international contestation. Moreover, it situates Russian officials and political technologists as active contributors to international debates about the emerging multipolar world order.

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.

From the moment that capital is no longer satisfied to remain commercial or interest-bearing capital, but begins a production process to exploit labor power, i.e., from the moment capital functions as a relation of production and as a relation of classes, immobilization of a part of the means of production (means of work and objects of work) as use-values becomes necessary, even though they by themselves produce no surplus value. Marx aptly refers to the capital thus immobilized as “constant capital.”

People's Republic of China's (P.R.C.) view of its relationship with other countries has changed totally in recent years. It is now steering a “middle path” with the extreme attitudes of the past being overcome. PRC President Jiang Zeming in a speech during his recent visit to Russia said, “it has become a proven fact that neither confrontation nor alliance conforms to the fundamental interests of the two peoples”. Former slogans, popular in 1960's/1970's, such as “Down with US imperialism and Soviet revisionism! and phrases like “comrade plus brother and friendship built up by blood and flesh”, are no longer heard in recent years.