Search

The article addresses the dark side of capitalism as an economic system, as identified and highlighted in orthodox, laissez-faire, including classical and neoclassical, economics. While orthodox economics is widely regarded as apologetic with respect to capitalism, still it to some extent recognizes or implies the latter's dark side and therefore its duality and complexity in terms of its economic and other outcomes. The paper identifies and considers certain salient manifestations of this face of capitalism such as those in the market, in economic welfare, in economic structure and the distribution of wealth, and others. The overall finding is that even orthodox economics does not consider capitalism to be an absolute good and an immutable, eternal, and perfect economic system, and instead acknowledges and emphasizes its relative character in societal and historical terms and its various adverse dimensions and imperfections. The paper contributes to a better understanding of classical and neoclassical economics' treatment of capitalism in relation to its conception within classical sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay argues that to understand Foucault's attraction to neoliberalism, we must understand the elective theoretical affinities that he perceived between this current in economic thought and one of the central elements of his own philosophical project: the critique of humanism or 'anthropologism' (that is, the tendency in modern thought to sift all knowledge through human knowledge). Specifically, the essay examines moments in Foucault's 1978 and 1979 lectures when Foucault clearly refers to the arguments of his earlier work, The Order of Things, the locus classicus of his philosophical antihumanism. In particular, Foucault claimed that economists of the Chicago School developed a theory of labor that escaped the limitations of the 'anthropological' theory of labor associated with Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx. He also interpreted the notion of homo oeconomicus and Smith's idea of the market's 'invisible hand' as critiques of the characteristically modern attempt to make transcendental claims on the basis of human nature. The essay concludes by asking if Foucault's philosophical antihumanism provides an adequate vantage point from which to critique contemporary capitalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's response to the comments made by Professor Duncan Foley on his article on the theoretical world of the old classical economists. The author focuses on the issues raised, including the structure of classical theories and the existence of an analytical core, the quantity of capital in neoclassical theories, and the implications of the classical approach for policy analysis or economic policy.