Search

The article focuses on challenging the conventional belief that market mechanisms and socialism are inherently contradictory. It examines the arguments against market socialism, particularly those that claim it cannot align with socialist principles of collective ownership and equality. It emphasizes the potential for market socialism to achieve economic efficiency while promoting social justice and equitable distribution of resources.

Social Reproduction Theory (SRT) takes as its starting point the recognition that household activity in the capitalist mode of production constitutes far more than the production of use values. The activities that take place within households are understood to be part of the entire process of reproduction of society, i.e. social reproduction. The proponents of SRT have stimulated much valuable empirical research on these activities. However, there are major problems in the SRT framework within which these activities are placed. Although presented in the form of a contribution to Marxist theory, SRT contradicts the most basic precepts of this theory. SRT diverges fundamentally from Marxist theory in its use of the term "social reproduction," and in the related distinctions between "reproductive" and "productive" labor, and between "paid" and "unpaid" labor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is a "fully automated" capitalism possible? According to Marx's labor theory of value (LTV) and the theory of surplus-value derived from it, a fully automated economy cannot be profitable. To refute the theory, critics have put forth various thought experiments claiming to show that a fully automated but profitable capitalist economy is conceivable. I argue that the thought experiments fail to demonstrate conceivability, because they misunderstand the role of labor in a commodity economy. In the latter, labor is a means for acquiring the property of others, and so it cannot be eliminated so long as the economy is based on the commodity form. Quite apart from issues of technical feasibility, then, the idea of a fully automated commodity economy is conceptually incoherent. The ineliminability of labor under the commodity form reflects the limits to the socialization of production this form imposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of Free Digital Labor has emerged at the center of scientific debate with the advent of platform capitalism. This notion denotes the apparently free activity that users perform on digital platforms, producing, often unknowingly, data without any monetary remuneration. It is therefore particularly useful in signaling the progressive loss of a clear distinction between working time and leisure time. The paradigmatic example of the valorization of these activities is provided by Google and Facebook. Their accumulation system is based on a multi-sided market logic, in which the extraction of user data is combined with online advertising. Recent debate has raised several objections to the notion of Free Digital Labor. Our aim is to clarify the terms of the debate and to revive the relevance of the notion of Free Digital Labor through a historical and theoretical analysis of the transformations of the relationship between capital and labor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The profound insights provided by Minsky's theory of financial instability are insufficient. On the one hand, as Marxists and other critics have pointed out, they tend to dissociate finance from the instability-creating dynamics of the wider economy. On the other hand, they tend to depict the state as an exogenous, stabilizing, influence. This creates an inherent tension in Minsky's analysis, which also insists, "stability is destabilizing." A Marxist understanding resolves this tension. The state is an essential and active component of capitalism and its contradictions. State interventions may attenuate some of capitalism's destabilizing processes but these displace rather than eliminate the underlying contradictions and themselves contribute to longer-term instability and crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the famous Thatcherian slogan "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) has been widely internalized, Marxism remains capable of negating capitalism. The no-alternative ethos may be countered, from a Marxian philosophical perspective, by means of a negativity thesis framed around the following two intertwined arguments. First, capitalist hegemony is itself a reason for a revolutionary project that aims at a world in which alternatives are not thought to be impossible. Second, Marxism does not offer a prefigurative model for communism, and this is not a shortcoming but a merit: communism cannot be known positively under the limiting conditions of capitalism. Given that communism is historical, expecting an a priori model of the communist society amounts to committing an idealist fallacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major transformations of existing social orders require a broad belief: it is possible to build a viable alternative that addresses the major problems of the existing society. Social discussions involving a multitude of "mid-level concrete" models, or "previsions," of such a viable alternative combine with the existing social discontent to create such social beliefs. The broad concept of "socialism" designates an organization of society and its production that does not involve some group of people living off their appropriation of part of the production of the rest of society. This paper presents some of the elements of a prefigurative conceptualization called Protagonistic Planned Socialism, which belongs to the Democratic Planned Socialism family of models. Its central elements are protagonistic collective self-determination of the operation of all the institutions of society by its members, consciously socially planned social production, and social labor processes that support and promote human development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Socialism passes through three stages, which capture the qualitative transformation of the relations of production caused by changes in the productive forces. Specifically, the primary stage = public ownership as central (private ownership as supplement) + market-based distribution according to labor as central (distribution according to capital as supplement) + state(plan-) dominated market economy. The intermediate stage = multiple forms of public ownership + multiple commodity-type distribution according to labor + state-dominated planned economy (market adjustment as supplement). Finally, advanced socialism = singleform public ownership by entire society + product-based distribution according to labor + complete planned economy. Communism = single-form public ownership by entire society + product-based distribution according to need + fully planned economy. By contrast, the modern capitalist economic system = private ownership + distribution according to capital + state-directed market economy. This new theory of the three stages of socialism reasonably coordinates the various systemic criteria in the Marxist classics, and helps reveal the inherent connection between the primary stage of socialism and the great systemic goal of communism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses that the ever-persistent debate over the origins and history of capitalism has been at a crossroads, stuck between orthodoxies established in the 1970s and 80s. Topics discussed include their labor was built into the existence of metal coins as a medium of trade and measurement of abstract quantitative value; and coins were also used to pay for mercenary soldiers, central to ancient warfare, as blood was spilled for money and colonization was tied to money.

Facing a crisis of legitimacy, the capitalist class is constructing new hegemonic projects to stabilize their global system. This article will examine competing fractions of the transnational capitalist class (TCC), how these fractions are confronting the crisis of global capitalism, and how TCC theory analyzes the current state of conflict. TCC theorists see the development of two hegemonic projects, one based on militarized accumulation and authoritarian politics and that of green capitalist reformism. But differences exist on the evaluation of the strength and formation of these emerging blocs. The article also pays attention to the relationship between the United States and China as a battleground between globalizing projects, rather than nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on China: In the Perspective of Historical Materialism has published in Science & Society in April 2020, Marxist economist David Laibman aims at a rigorous re-development of historical materialist theory to clarify the conceptual confusion theoretical and descriptive stages in stadial theory in China. Topics include the Laibman moves the theoretical focus from society at large (AST) to capitalism in specific, and the rhythmic advances and retreats within a certain AST stage.

The predominant approach to contemporary critical theory lacks a critical theory of capitalist society. Nancy Fraser has endeavored to provide such a critical theory in her "systematic" "crisis–critique" of capitalism as an "institutionalized social order." Yet Fraser's "systematic" theory is not systematic, but fragmentary and internally inconsistent. The Marxian premises of Fraser's theory are at odds with its ensuing Habermasian notions of capitalism, contradiction, crises, and emancipation, and her theory consequently lacks a robust explication of these dynamics. This raises the alternative possibility of developing a contemporary critical theory of the crisis–ridden reproduction of the negative totality of capitalist society that brings Adorno and Horkheimer's critical theory together with the subterranean strand of contemporary critical theory: the New Reading of the critique of political economy as a critical social theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including Capitalism, Depoliticization, and Climate Politics.

The article focuses on symposium brings together a range of Marxist perspectives on the state by both early career researchers and more established scholars. Topics include the nation-wide police riot against anti-racist protests in the middle of a global pandemic during which the U.S. and Great Britain states have failed to manage the outbreak of COVID-19, and leading to the highest rate of unemployment since the Great Depression and tens of thousands of needless deaths.

The arrest of Meng Wanzhou and the Huawei prosecution have revealed a mounting battle for high-tech supremacy between the United States and China. The ongoing technology war and the trade war are merely one dimension of a far-reaching and accelerating imperialist rivalry. The changing reality on the world stage has urged a reconsideration of the transnational capitalist class (TCC) thesis and the theory of globalization in general. By reviewing the historical debate between the globalist and critical realist schools, I argue that William Carroll’s theoretical frame of global capitalism grounded in corporate network research through emphasizing a dialectical process of the “making” of the TCC is better equipped to explain the unfolding Sino–U. S. conflict. Corporate network research has unveiled a highly regionalized and uneven TCC network: the transnational interlocks of both Chinese and Western corporate directorates are relatively sparse while regional and national ties dominate. It affirms the fragility of the TCC, its internal friction and potential decomposition. It also provides the material ground for analyzing the Sino–U. S. imperialist rivalry as a structural development out of global capitalism and its class relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The plausibility of “gendered exploitation” as a sine qua non of capitalism, as articulated by both classic Marxist–feminism since the 1970s and more recently by authors of social reproduction theory, stands or falls with the evaluation of Marx’s theory of value. From the standpoint of both Marx’s monetary theory of value and the problem of quantification, the use of “women’s oppression” in capitalist social reproduction appears to be questionable. This also necessitates a deeper analysis of the use of “gender” in the wider field of pertinent Marxist–feminist literature. Arguments for “gendered exploitation” often hinge on unsound premises that introduce a naturalizing view of social relations. Analogous to Barbara and Karen Fields’ intervention against “Racecraft,” the term “Gendercraft” may represent this argumentative move. The notion of gender as the site of specifically capitalist exploitation is thus challenged and countered with a new emphasis on struggles against the wage relation as the site of anticapitalist resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Socialism has traditionally been identified with central, top-down planning, which is seen as impossible and irrational. The only alternative is "the market," identified with capitalism. The 20th-century socialist experience, by contrast, put forward a multilevel (central–local) model, in which enterprises form their own detailed plans, under incentives to plan both ambitiously and realistically. The incentive design literature in Western economics has suggested an "impossibility" result: there is no way to incentivize local agents to tell the truth about their actual possibilities and therefore to contribute to efficient central plans. However, under modern conditions, a Collective Morale Function operates: planning requires activist mobilization of, and critical understanding among, workers. If an enterprise is to organize production successfully, it must attain high levels of morale, which in turn requires truth-telling and ambitious planning. This constitutes a path toward mature socialism, breaking the one-dimensional binary: either authoritarian planning, or the "market." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the conspiracy theories in the federal government such as racism, anti-Semitism, and ethnic phobias. Topics include formulating by liberals and leftists regarding the role of big money in politics; questioning the veracity of the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination; and discussing on capitalism working in the age of globalization.

The article presents the concept of social class experiencing of a revival among intellectuals and activists. Topics include capitalism being for the exploitation of wage labor encountering towards class analysis; recognizing the movement on neoliberal capitalism overcoming the alienated existence; and historicizing conception of social class and demonstrating the intrinsic relationship between the modern capitalist form of class theory and revolutionary socialist politics.

Did Marx's critique of capitalism involve a concept of distributive justice? This question arose in a dispute that started in the 1970s, based on the argument by U. S. analytical Marxist Allen Wood. The dispute lasted for decades, and spread to China. But if we follow Marx's thinking, we see that this controversy already appeared then, in Marx's critique of capitalism. Marx's theory formed in response to the viewpoints of the Young Hegelians, the National Economists, and others. Some key points of the dispute can be clarified by tracking Marx's critical thought, from the standpoint of both its historical and its normative dimensions, juridical judgment and value judgment, the theoretical dimension and the dimension of reality. The research draws in particular on the text of the new MEGA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Karl Marx's revolutionary socialism, Karl Polanyi's observation of the "planned" nature of market economies, and Claude Meillassoux's Marxist approach to economic anthropology form the basis for a historical review of labor market evolution in the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period from the 1970s to the early 2000s. The so-called "socialist market economy" in the PRC implies above all the state's strong intervention in the labor market, which has not worked in the spirit of restriction (i.e., reducing working hours, increasing social welfare and leisure time, and so forth), but as an enabler of labor commodification, for the purpose of boosting the economy. The notion of "liberating the productive forces," a "Chinese interpretation" of Karl Marx's fight for human emancipation, provides insights on the relationship between economic development and labor market evolution, and thus contributes to the literature on China's ascent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many reasons have been advanced why Capital remained unfinished. Marx's bad health seriously hampered his research and writing, but this was much more so in the early 1860s, than in the 1870s. Also, after 1872, Marx's other commitments had become much less time-consuming. During the decade and until his death, Marx studied agronomy, geography, geology, ethnology and mathematics, making extensive notes, but his scientific output was relatively small. Other reasons that have been advanced are allegedly incorrect solutions to theoretical problems, such as the transformation of labor values into prices of production, the secular behavior of the rate of profit, the expanded reproduction of the capitalist economy, or how non-capitalist societies would evolve. Except for his theories of expanded reproduction, and economic and financial crisis, which clearly awaited further elaboration, most of these reasons are unconvincing. However, being a perfectionist, Marx was permanently searching for new material to further substantiate his theory, accumulating notes that he was unable to integrate into his manuscript of Volumes II and III of Capital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A close reading of select passages from the Grundrisse suggests that the precise way in which Marx turns Hegel on his head is to note how the immanent unfolding of capital's logic in the world creates a set of real-world determinations that are, then, the proper sphere of human activity. The dialectical shifts in Marx's understanding of surplus — from surplus value, to surplus labor, to the leisure time that allows for the critique of capital — illustrate how an immanent law of capital's unfolding generates the real-world conditions for immiseration as well as the potential for liberation. This potential — realized in the much-discussed possibility of automation — can only emerge, however, through political struggle; it will not happen on its own. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The phrase "state capitalism" originated in the revolutionary socialist movement over a century ago. In subsequent years, the notion was taken up by significant currents of Marxist reflection in political economy, including anti-Stalinist left portrayals of the Soviet Union, studies of the post–Second World War dirigiste state in the Western Bloc, and examinations of statist economic policies in Third World nations in the aftermath of decolonization. The most decisive incursions of this variegated Marxist literature on state capitalism addressed the state–class problematic, questioning the class character of the capitalist state. As of today, the notion of state capitalism is widely adopted in mainstream commentary and academic scholarship on the developing world; yet the issue of class has been entirely obliterated in favor of elitecentric interpretations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Household Responsibility System (HRS) has improved agricultural productivity and promoted economic growth and thus relieved poverty in the rural population of China. However, the prevailing assumptions about its nature are that it was the result of de-collectivization and privatization (or at least semi-privatization) of land and thus an adaptation of capitalism or semi-capitalism. Moreover, the property rights structure of the HRS in China is also often assumed to be ambiguous and insecure. Grasping the principal characteristics of the HRS requires historical analysis of its origin, development and eventual legislation and institutionalization. Marx's theory of property is the key to understanding the institutional change from the Commune System to the HRS. It reveals that the HRS is one kind of "individual property" that Marx envisioned in post-capitalist society. Antony M. Honoré's theoretical framework of ownership is usefully viewed as a development of Marx's theory; within that framework, the HRS emerges as a kind of "split ownership" and its property rights structure can be judged to be well-defined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which editor discusses various articles within the issue on topics including transformation of the labor supply in rural China, state capitalism and use of Marxist Analysis.

The distribution of wealth in a society of individual private owners can be studied under a very general set of premises, material and social, using the approach of statistical physics. While technically advanced works invoke large-number canonical approximations to support claims about the distribution of wealth or income in modern capitalist societies, a less formal but more general yet still rigorous argument can establish a major result, accessible to readers with no advanced training in mathematics, physics, or statistics. Two contradictory forces shape up wealth distribution: an increasing stock of wealth, which leads to a fall in the relative inequality of wealth distribution, and an expanding population, which increases it. Development of the forces of production, as embodied in a rising ratio of wealth to population, thus works against the capitalist production relations that promote wealth inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reports on the political–electoral participation. Topics discussed include the Democracy in Europe 2025 movement (DiEM25) are deeply into the struggle to build real alternatives on that continent; the midterm elections of 2018 and the presidential election year of 2020 in the U.S.; and nature of the social classes and political process within, the capitalist social formations.

Considered here are both the fact of and the reasons for the current disappearance of revolutionary agency from leftist theory/practice. In the centenary year of the Russian revolution, this process of vanishing, not just of direct action designed to capture state power but also of socialism itself, is traced from the advocacy of evolution of and latterly resistance to — but not transcendence of — capitalism. This reformist trend is linked in turn to changes in academia, and in particular the rise there of the "new" populist postmodernism. The latter has resulted on the one hand in the championing both of peasant economy/culture and of non-class identities, thereby returning to earlier views held by revisionism; and on the other a consequent abandonment of class analysis, socialist politics, revolutionary agency, and allied concepts of progress, modernity and development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the notion of populism has gained greater conceptual clarity in the work of Ernesto Laclau, its material conditions of existence have not yet been properly theorized. In order to grasp populism's historical specificity, an analysis of the internal dynamics of capitalism is required. A crucial distinction between Liberal and Regulated Social Structures of Accumulation (SSAs) reveals that the types of organic crisis associated with the former are conducive to populist expressions, while, regarding the latter, the opposite is the case. This claim is substantiated via exploration of the types of actors each kind of SSA empowers during the expansion phase, the nature of the systemic breakdown ensuing from each, and the mode of rupture of its associated social consensuses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on Marxist–Humanist revolutionary philosopher Raya Dunayevskaya and living strands of intercommunication between revolutionary moments. It mentions state-capitalist theory meant battling not only Stalinism, but orthodox and non-orthodox Trotskyism, which refused to openly confront state-capitalist analysis. It also mentions manifestation of the multidimensional origins of Marxist–Humanism that emerged from within the State-Capitalist Tendency.

The article focuses on world-historic impact of Karl Heinrich Marx who was born on May 5, 1818 and marxism with great working-class emancipation could not be achieved. It mentions information technology revolution creates new opportunities for enhancement of creative labor, and production associated with the classic industrial revolutions. It also mentions need to create an alternative communist world of democracy and unfettered human development.

In the age of “transnational monopoly capitalism,” the hierarchy of nations along the axial division of labor has become more sophisticated and rigid than ever. In the global cycles of capital accumulation, the price of the competitiveness of the center is paid by the periphery. This burden-transferring maintains the gap between the center and peripheries and becomes increasingly significant in times of crises. This is illustrated by the example of the Central and Eastern European EU-member states, where the transnational corporations (TNCs) enjoy higher rates of profit and exploitation, and correspondingly, lower unit labor costs and wage shares. The increase of GDP in the region has been creamed off by the TNCs through repatriation of profits. The more a (semi-) peripheral country is integrated into the hierarchic system of global accumulation of capital, the less its catching up is likely. It seems that catching up is only possible beyond capitalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on Stalinism for use in a Marxist journal and supporters of one or another aspect of the changes in the Soviet Union under the leadership of Joseph Stalin which forced collectivization of agriculture. It mentions stalinism are authoritarianism, stageism and nationalism and feudalism and imperialism to explain underdevelopment downplaying the dominant causal role of capitalism. It also mentions leadership of necessity degenerates into dictatorship.

The defeat of the revolutions of 1848 marked the replacement of radical republicanism with Marxism and anarchism, which became the two great streams of the left. Seemingly, the ensuing titanic struggle between anarchism and socialism had been resolved by the Russian Revolution. Since the early 1990s and the implosion of the Soviet Union, anarchist thought, as exemplified by the Occupy Movement, has regained widespread currency. Anarchism offers no potential of overcoming capitalism. Marxism is essentially incompatible with anarchism, with few possibilities of collaboration. A strategic vision of a renewed left, informed by Marxism, would benefit from incorporating some practices identified with anarchism-such as more systematic democratic processes and the fostering of communities evidencing genuine concern for their members' cultural and material needs. The scarcity of these communitarian practices in Communist countries and Communist parties outside of the socialist bloc contributed to their failure in the 20th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including historical materialism, Marxism and anarchism, and the Marxian analysis of capitalism.

The article explores economist and philosopher Karl Marx's unfinished critique of political economy. Topics discussed are the unity of the processes of production and circulation, transformation of values into prices of production, theory of capitalist crisis and the distinction between capital in general and many capitals, theory of the falling rate of profit and its relation to financial markets, and transformation of surplus-value into rent when it comes to competition.

Ronald Coase's famous Theorem states that externalities - third-party effects of transactions that undermine the supposed optimality of competitive equilibrium - do not need to be corrected by active government policy, as in the classical presentation by A. C. Pigou, if there are complete markets in property rights. This Theorem, however, is inherently flawed, as revealed by 'internal' or 'immanent' critique of its assumptions. It thus fails, even on its own terms. Beyond this, however, a more radical critique, which foregrounds issues of social structure, social relations, power and conflict, forms the basis for a comprehensive analysis of (capitalist) property rights. This radical analysis of the Coase Theorem and the debate spawned by it has implications for the entire field of 'law and economics' studies, and for its central notion that legal doctrine can be based on any set of pure efficiency criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hegel's philosophical system rested on an appropriation of the concept which lay at the heart of Goethe's scientific work, the Urphänomen (archetypal phenomenon). In a sense, the Urphänomen is the Urphänomen of Hegel's philosophy: Hegel transformed and expanded this idea in his Logic, in which the place of the Urphänomen is taken by a Concept rather than a phenomenon. Marx in turn took this idea as the foundation for Capital, with the practice of commodity exchange being the Urphänomen of bourgeois society; but changed the relationship between conceptual and practical development. Each link in this chain turns the Urphänomen 'inside out' in the act of appropriating it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his late writings, Marx speculated that Russia could bypass the 'necessary' stages that had defined the economic history of Western Europe. By appropriating the positive results of capitalism without traversing through the phase of negativity which produced them, the Russian commune, he claimed, could transition directly into communism. Kevin Anderson's Marx at the Margins (Anderson, 2010) defends the mistaken interpretation that Marx extended this possibility to all precapitalist societies that he studied at the time. This sort of 'multilinearity' universalizes the path of development open to Russia, understating the historical context and specific social relations which, Marx argued, enabled such a transformation. Aside from its European context, the distinguishing mark of this commune was its 'dualism' - a feature that endowed it with greater 'historical initiative.' [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]