Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Marx, Uno and the Critique of EconomicsTheorizing World Economic Change Following the Unraveling of the Imperialist Stage

Marx, Uno and the Critique of Economics: Theorizing World Economic Change Following the... [In this section, I first wish to explain how I understand the current, worldwide economic crisis in the longue-durée history of capitalism. In regard to “capitalism”, I have already claimed, in Part I, that its phase (or process) of “development” through the three stages of mercantilism, liberalism and imperialism, ended irrevocably with the First World War (1914–1918), and that a new phase (or process) of its “disintegration”, which I often also categorize as that of the “ex-capitalist transition”, began thereafter. What distinguishes these two phases (or processes) of capitalism (here again in the sense of Marx’s “capitalist mode of production”) is that, in the former, the system was basically self-regulatory, both in its macroeconomic and microeconomic aspect, whereas in the latter, that is no longer the case. In other words, during capitalism in its “developmental phases”, both the macro-law of (relative surplus) population, which determined the value of labour-power, at its near full employment level, given the available state of industrial technology, and the micro-law of value (or of average profit), which tended to ensure a near-optimal allocation of productive resources (including especially of productive labour) to all the branches of industry, enforced themselves automatically. The bourgeois nation-state was thus a “minimalist state” in the sense that it interfered least with this dependable self-regulatory mechanism that was inherent in genuine capitalism. In the latter “phase of capitalism’s disintegration”, however, these two basic laws do not enforce themselves automatically any more, as they are both paralyzed and thus dysfunctional. It is for that reason that the nation-state had to adopt the new form of the so-called mixed economy, whereby to intervene with its macroeconomic policies. Only by means of these policies can both the highest possible activity level of the economy together with a near-optimum supply of active money (by fiat, and thus not based on gold) be achieved. That would also entail microeconomic (industry-specific) policies of regulation so as to ensure society’s overall welfare. Although this general trend has been understood and accepted as a “fact” even by bourgeois economics, the latter never engaged itself in seriously reflecting on the meaning of that fact. Nor did it really comprehend the reason why these policies have nowadays become indispensable. Bourgeois economics has not really accounted for the reason why the international gold standard (or any other commodity-money) system could not be restored after WWI. It, therefore, failed to account for the reason why the minimalist “bourgeois state” must now be replaced by a more munificent “welfare state”, in order to adequately support the needs of our real economic life in society. The nature of the present malfunctioning of the world economy will not be grasped, for as long as the profession of economics continues to equivocate on this crucial matter.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Marx, Uno and the Critique of EconomicsTheorizing World Economic Change Following the Unraveling of the Imperialist Stage

Download PDF
21 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/marx-uno-and-the-critique-of-economics-theorizing-world-economic-XNicRAq0TK
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Copyright
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
ISBN
978-3-031-22629-8
Pages
95 –115
DOI
10.1007/978-3-031-22630-4_6
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[In this section, I first wish to explain how I understand the current, worldwide economic crisis in the longue-durée history of capitalism. In regard to “capitalism”, I have already claimed, in Part I, that its phase (or process) of “development” through the three stages of mercantilism, liberalism and imperialism, ended irrevocably with the First World War (1914–1918), and that a new phase (or process) of its “disintegration”, which I often also categorize as that of the “ex-capitalist transition”, began thereafter. What distinguishes these two phases (or processes) of capitalism (here again in the sense of Marx’s “capitalist mode of production”) is that, in the former, the system was basically self-regulatory, both in its macroeconomic and microeconomic aspect, whereas in the latter, that is no longer the case. In other words, during capitalism in its “developmental phases”, both the macro-law of (relative surplus) population, which determined the value of labour-power, at its near full employment level, given the available state of industrial technology, and the micro-law of value (or of average profit), which tended to ensure a near-optimal allocation of productive resources (including especially of productive labour) to all the branches of industry, enforced themselves automatically. The bourgeois nation-state was thus a “minimalist state” in the sense that it interfered least with this dependable self-regulatory mechanism that was inherent in genuine capitalism. In the latter “phase of capitalism’s disintegration”, however, these two basic laws do not enforce themselves automatically any more, as they are both paralyzed and thus dysfunctional. It is for that reason that the nation-state had to adopt the new form of the so-called mixed economy, whereby to intervene with its macroeconomic policies. Only by means of these policies can both the highest possible activity level of the economy together with a near-optimum supply of active money (by fiat, and thus not based on gold) be achieved. That would also entail microeconomic (industry-specific) policies of regulation so as to ensure society’s overall welfare. Although this general trend has been understood and accepted as a “fact” even by bourgeois economics, the latter never engaged itself in seriously reflecting on the meaning of that fact. Nor did it really comprehend the reason why these policies have nowadays become indispensable. Bourgeois economics has not really accounted for the reason why the international gold standard (or any other commodity-money) system could not be restored after WWI. It, therefore, failed to account for the reason why the minimalist “bourgeois state” must now be replaced by a more munificent “welfare state”, in order to adequately support the needs of our real economic life in society. The nature of the present malfunctioning of the world economy will not be grasped, for as long as the profession of economics continues to equivocate on this crucial matter.]

Published: Feb 1, 2023

There are no references for this article.