Marxism and Merchant Capitalism (original) (raw)

Marxism and Capitalism, the Inseparable Two

The purpose of this paper is to suggest for the future development model of capitalism by recasting certain aspects of Marxism that are still relevant today. The notion of capitalism and free market has been cherished as the unchallengeable and universal value that lead states to prosperity and economic abundance, yet the inconvenient reality in our contemporary societies suggest otherwise. In this paper, I will revisit Marxism in the wake of the chronic problems inherently present in the capitalist system. Just as Marxists have imprudently forecasted the end of capitalism, capitalism must not hastily conclude Marxism as an obsolete theory unable to capture the realities of our contemporary society.

Marx and the critique of capitalism

In this article excerpted from the International relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. It examines Marx’s arguments against capitalism. For a summary of ideology opposed to capitalism. Criticism of Capitalism ranges from expressing disagreement with the principles of capitalism in its entirety, to expressing disagreement with particular outcome of capitalism. In discussions of world politics, it is not uncommon for Marxism to be dismissed out of hand as being preoccupied with economics rather than politics, and concerning itself with domestic rather than international social relations. In this article I will suggest to the contrary that Marxist theory aims at a critical understanding of capitalism as an historically particular way of organizing social life, and that this form of social organization entails political, cultural, and economic aspects which need to be understood as a dynamic ensemble of social relations not necessarily contained within the territorial boundaries of nation states. Viewed in this way, Marxism can yield insights into the complex social relationships—on scales from the workplace and the household to the global—through which human beings produce and reproduce their social relations, the natural world, and themselves. Marx was one of the most incisive critics of a peculiarly modern form of social life capitalism. For Marx, capitalism was not to be confused with markets or exchange, which long predated capitalism. Rather, capitalism represented a form of social life in which commodification had proceeded to such a degree that human labour itself was bought and sold on the market. One of Marx’s central insights was that this situation presupposed the development of historically specific class-based relations and powers: the concomitant development of capital—socially necessary means of production reconstituted as the exclusive private property of a few—and wage labour as the compulsory activity of the many. Under the class relations of capitalism, direct producers are not personally tied to their exploiter, as were slaves in bondage to their master or feudal serfs bound to the lord’s estate.

Karl Marx's Theory of Capitalism Exposition, Critique, and Appraisal

This book gives a clear synthesis of Marx’s theory of Capitalism and its relation with economic theory as it evolved over the course of the last 300 years. It places Marx’s though in perspective, comparing it with the main aspects of the economic theories that preceded it, including not only the Classical Adam Smith and David Ricardo but also economists like Cantillon, Turgot, and Ramsay that Marx chose to ignore with respect to the crucial issue of entrepreneurship because it was incompatible with his Theory of Surplus Value. But the book also contrasts Marx’s theory with Walras’, the Neoclassical economist whose influence on contemporary mainstream economic theory was most lasting. The analytical aspects of Marx’s theory are rigorously expressed by means of the technique of Input-Output Analysis, which is explained from the most elementary level in order to make the book self-contained. Each of the multiple topics of Marx’s complex and refined theory is explained in detail, including his theory of money, the heterogeneity in kinds of labor and in productive techniques, the turnover of capital, Simple and Extended Reproduction, his theory of the economic cycle, his theory of ground rent, his theory of productive and unproductive labor, and his view of the main tendencies of capitalist society. The book is structured in accordance with the development process of Marx’s thought. Hence, it begins with the life project he generated in his youth and drove him from the study of history and philosophy to that of Political Economy, on the one hand, and political praxis, on the other. Hence, Parts I, II, and IV of the book respectively address A) the philosophical-methodological foundations of his scientific endeavor (his Historical Materialism); B) his scientific theory of capitalist society as expressed in Capital; and C) his political thought and praxis, which had enormous effects over the course of the 20th century. Part III of the book addresses our critique of Marx’s theory of Capitalism. Beyond our criticisms, however, the book shows that Marx made important contributions to the comprehension of the functioning of Capitalism in the more conventional part of his theory, which we denominate ‘exoteric’ in order to contrast it with his ‘esoteric’ Theory of Surplus Value which was the foundation of his view of the exploitation of wage labor in Capitalism.

A.A. Popovici - Program of the new site marxianeconomics.wordpress.com (10.XI.2016)

The works listed here (nearly 500 books and articles) can be viewed and downloaded immediately. I wanted to offer everyone interested the chance to read the fundamental economic works of Marx and also a wide variety of old and recent works about the most important problems of Marxist economic science. I tried to represent all currents of thoughts from within the Marxist economic sciences, along with their mutual critics or about other currents (neo-classicism or “heterodox” schools) from the whole of the economic sciences. I think that, along with these, one should also have access to the main critical works against the Marxist economic theory. All voices must be heard in a dialogue, even if it is a polemic, and Marxists should be capable of coming up with a proper answer to those critics and not to deny them just because they belong to the enemy camp. True science can only benefit from this type of dialogue. I am not against a social role of economics, but against its politicization during research. The goal of science must be the truth, and this goal must reign over the others, which cannot be adequately achieved otherwise. This could be also expressed as a necessity of turning practical consequences of the Marxian economics not into political ‘weapons’, but into social ‘tools’. Psychologically, this would be a passage from a destructive, negativist, and sometime resenting approach, to a constructive, participative, and empathic one. We need neither science for science, nor science with (political) tendency, but SCIENCE FOR TRUTH.

Primitive Accumulation: The Aleatory Foundation of Capitalism

Rethinking Marxism, 2002

It is a matter of common knowledge that Karl Marx presents the difference between his analysis and all previous (bourgeois) understandings of political economy as a historical versus an ahistorical conception of capitalism. What is considerably less certain is how Marx, or those who came after him, understood this disparity: that is, what are its theoretical grounds and what were or could be its effects in the realm of philosophy, historical understanding, and political practice? There have been many interpretations of this difference; in this day and age this difference is often represented as either an incorrect prophecy (capitalism will collapse) or a contribution to a vague and inconsequential awareness of history (something, some economy existed before capitalism). If it is possible today to propose another thought of the distinction between Marx and political economy, or to attempt to reanimate the question, problem, and lines of investigation from behind this accepted bit of academic common sense, I would suggest that for Marx this difference, the difference history makes, has entirely different grounds, and different effects, than mere prophecy, transforming what is understood by society, the economy, materiality, power, and subjectivity (Althusser and Balibar 1975, 158).