What is today the economy and what should it be (original) (raw)

Solidary Economic Management – Against Profit-Obsessed Capitalist Oligarchies

This article advocates taking up the idea of 'solidary economic management, ensuring a better life for all – in Germany, the European Union and Europe, as well as worldwide'. It is somewhat more concrete than the term 'solidarity economy', though it does resemble how Marcos Arruda, for example, conceives the latter: a strategy to enforce the values and practices of rising ethical and humane quality within the public, private and social economic sphere. In this understanding, 'solidarity economy' would not be restricted to merely an 'island' within social economic life but understood more generally as a transformation problem: the sub-sector would grow as a result of social struggles and activities, simultaneously changing the public and private economic sectors. The values and principles of solidarity economy would increasingly have a stronger impact and alter the interrelations between both spheres. Ultimately, only the solidarity economy – based on common property – would remain. If the approach envisaged by Arruda, which essentially sums up an ongoing Brazilian debate but is far from achieving broad consensus in Western Europe, is to be implemented, capital oligarchies must successfully be antagonised. Doing so requires the critical application of the theoretical legacy of Marx, Engels and Luxemburg in particular. Disambiguation The term 'solidarity' is highly contested both in this country and beyond these days, while 'solidarity economy' has become a catchword: political opponents and adversaries speak of solidarity and 'practising solidarity'. This should not deter us from using these terms. We should, however, ensure that we consistently scrutinise who is seeking to imply what when speaking of 'solidarity'. With regard to academic discourse, three characteristic moments can be identified: Firstly, the reference to a plethora of interpretations and much attention to an explanatory as well as a normative, or rather imperative use of the term. Secondly, the term 'solidarity' serves to substantiate the stability of a given social context and its members' sense of belonging. Thirdly, the term represents the normative orientation towards that kind of behaviour and action by the members of such social cohesion which ensures its continued existence, or rather growth. 'Solidarity' is moreover seen as a 'fundamental value', similar to freedom, equality and justice (see, e.g., Bayertz, Boshammer). If conceived this way, 'solidarity' and 'practising solidarity' does not necessarily imply 'siding with the weak (and particularly the weakest) and fighting for a fundamental social change together with them'. Similarly, according to this academic notion, the desired changes would not automatically pursue the continuous structural improvement of the social position of the weakest and the weak. The authors of this article, then, grasp solidarity as a dual social relation: between the members of society in need of support and those coming to their aid on the one hand, and between them and the rulers on the other. Solidarity is thus both an appropriation of the problems of others and a critique of relations of power and dominance – the antithesis to competition, as it were. It symbolises the rejection of the enforcement of one's own interests through the realisation of, or acquiescence to the discrimination, oppression, exploitation, social exclusion of others, as well as the refusal to accept structural violence against people. The latter includes the destruction of people's natural conditions of existence. In this basic understanding, 'solidary economic management' implies the employment and use of one's own (as well as other available) resources in order to practice solidarity. It would not, then, be compatible with the blanket maxim of, 'we must first boost economic growth in order to be able

Political Economy in a Broad Sense: Elements of Institutionalism and Utopianism

Voprosy Ekonomiki, 2010

The paper deals with A. Bogdanovs and I. Stepanovs experience of elaborating political economy in a broad sense. The author focuses on their claim that economic formations develop historically in a non-linear way. Similarities and differences between Bogdanovs organisation theory and T. Veblens institutionalism in the analysis of capitalist society are shown. Historical and utopian roots of Bogdanovs socialist economy ideas are considered.

Today's Problems in The Minds of The Great Economists

Today's Problems in The MInds of The Great Economists, 2021

This book presents the history of economic thought as it relates to today’s most pressing problems, and it emphasizes the critical connection that exists between what may seem cold, unrealistic mathematical economic models, and the quality of everyday life of any citizen of the planet earth. It shows how contemporary developments in neoclassical theoretical models in Welfare Economics, General Equilibrium Theory, Information Economics and Game Theory have created the necessity to integrate the neoclassical theory of free markets and the institutional theory. It argues that while the main goal of economics is to improve human wellbeing in a broad sense, the quality of human life; we should also take into account its second goal, which is to improve the microeconomic efficiency of the system. We should not lose sight of the fundamental contributions of the free markets, and of neoclassical economics which have seriously influenced the digital and financial revolutions that have allowed the ICT Revolution to happen. Individual freedom and creativity are critical for the success of capitalism. But they do not happen in a vacuum, institutions are required. It argues that the future of economic theory and policy will be defined by contributions in three fronts: pure theoretical models of free markets, institutional models, and models capable to integrate the interaction between free markets and institutions in the final determination of the actual economic equilibrium.

Philosophy of Economics in Context of the Challenges of Modernity

2017

This article is devoted to the philosophy of economics as to the interdisciplinary area existing on a joint of philosophy and economy. Philosophy of economics «philosophical problems of economy» is the scientific interdisciplinary direction investigating the most fundamental, basic, and most metaphysical questions of development of an economy and economic science. Structurally, the philosophy of economics develops the following sections: methodological problems of philosophy of economy, market philosophy and philosophical problems of economic consciousness, economic axiology, economic ethics and anthropology. The problem of philosophy of economics in a context of the present challenges is to reflect successfully three threats: 1. Dogmatism and traditionalism; 2. Relativism; 3. Anti-scientism and irrationalism). In addition, this article attempts to prove the right to existence as a scientific discipline, though this problem is very difficult (especially in conditions of methodologic...