Se explica el concepto de este sistema que domina la economía internacional desde la última década del siglo XX. Es lo que se llama globalización, surgida como resultado del fin de la Europa comunista y de la apertura de la China comunista a la empresa capitalista. También, se analizan sus relaciones con el colonialismo, el liberalismo político y la democracia y, asimismo, el surgimiento de los otros sistemas contrapuestos a él, el socialismo y después, el comunismo, su gran rival económico en el siglo XX. Se señalan las graves crisis sufridas por el sistema en el siglo pasado y las respuestas dadas a ellas por parte de los economistas y los gobernantes. ; SC ; Biblioteca de Educación del Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte; Calle San Agustín, 5 - 3 planta; 28014 Madrid; Tel. +34917748000; biblioteca@mecd.es ; GBR
Se explica el concepto de este sistema que domina la economía internacional desde la última década del siglo XX. Es lo que se llama globalización, surgida como resultado del fin de la Europa comunista y de la apertura de la China comunista a la empresa capitalista. También, se analizan sus relaciones con el colonialismo, el liberalismo político y la democracia y, asimismo, el surgimiento de los otros sistemas contrapuestos a él, el socialismo y después, el comunismo, su gran rival económico en el siglo XX. Se señalan las graves crisis sufridas por el sistema en el siglo pasado y las respuestas dadas a ellas por parte de los economistas y los gobernantes. ; SC ; Biblioteca de Educación del Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte; Calle San Agustín, 5 - 3 planta; 28014 Madrid; Tel. +34917748000; biblioteca@mecd.es ; GBR
Monopoly describes a concentration of market share where competition is limited or nonexistent. The term "monopoly capitalism" is used to describe an aspect or stage of capitalism in which monopoly control is widespread and explicit, though the ideological fiction of free markets and competition is still maintained in public discourse. V. I. Lenin observed that it was financial sector gains from colonization that drives the economics of imperialism which is in turn crucial to understanding modern warfare and politics. Financial and monopoly capitalism has involved banks, but technical control is located in stockbrokers (who control trusts) and individual large-scale entrepreneurs (who control cartels). The identification of monopoly capitalism on a worldwide scale also led to the core–periphery model of political and economic power. While it is often thought that monopoly signals a move away from competition, it is more accurate to say that monopolies intensify cooperation among a ruling class and intensify competition between classes.
The paper deals with the definition of the concept of cognitive capitalism as a new historical phase of capitalism. Two main features are very important for this definition: the cognitive and immaterial dimension of labour becoming the leading factor of value creation and the central role played by the control of the production of knowledge and their transformation into goods. We show that the cognitive capitalism dynamics lies on four major transformations occurred since fordism's crisis: the information revolution, the rise of the part of immaterial capital that, incorporated into men, is closely linked to the development of the institutions of welfare state, the cognitive division of labour founded on the knowledges of workforce and its versatility, the relocation of value towards upstream, that is towards the work of conception and elaboration of prototypes. ; L'article est centré sur la définition du concept de capitalisme cognitif comme nouvelle phase historique du capitalisme. Deux traits essentiels dominent cette définition : la dimension cognitive et immatérielle du travail qui devient l'élément-clé de la production de valeur et la place centrale du contrôle de la production et de la transformation marchande des connaissances. On montre que la dynamique du capitalisme cognitif s'appuie sur quatre transformations majeures intervenues depuis la crise du fordisme : la révolution informationnelle, la hausse de la part du capital immatériel qui, incorporé dans les hommes, est étroitement liée au développement des institution du salaire socialisé, la division cognitive du travail qui se fonde sur les savoirs et la polyvalence de la force de travail, le déplacement de la valeur vers l'amont, c'est-à-dire vers le travail de conception et d'élaboration des prototype.
The paper deals with the definition of the concept of cognitive capitalism as a new historical phase of capitalism. Two main features are very important for this definition: the cognitive and immaterial dimension of labour becoming the leading factor of value creation and the central role played by the control of the production of knowledge and their transformation into goods. We show that the cognitive capitalism dynamics lies on four major transformations occurred since fordism's crisis: the information revolution, the rise of the part of immaterial capital that, incorporated into men, is closely linked to the development of the institutions of welfare state, the cognitive division of labour founded on the knowledges of workforce and its versatility, the relocation of value towards upstream, that is towards the work of conception and elaboration of prototypes. ; L'article est centré sur la définition du concept de capitalisme cognitif comme nouvelle phase historique du capitalisme. Deux traits essentiels dominent cette définition : la dimension cognitive et immatérielle du travail qui devient l'élément-clé de la production de valeur et la place centrale du contrôle de la production et de la transformation marchande des connaissances. On montre que la dynamique du capitalisme cognitif s'appuie sur quatre transformations majeures intervenues depuis la crise du fordisme : la révolution informationnelle, la hausse de la part du capital immatériel qui, incorporé dans les hommes, est étroitement liée au développement des institution du salaire socialisé, la division cognitive du travail qui se fonde sur les savoirs et la polyvalence de la force de travail, le déplacement de la valeur vers l'amont, c'est-à-dire vers le travail de conception et d'élaboration des prototype.
The striking commercial success of Shoshana Zuboff's 2019 book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, provides us with an excellent opportunity to reflect on how the present convergence of surveillance/capitalism coincides with popular critical and theoretical themes in surveillance studies, particularly that of sousveillance. Accordingly, this piece will first analyze how surveillance capitalism has molded the political behaviors and imaginations of activists. After acknowledging the theoretically and politically fraught implications of fighting surveillance with even more surveillance—especially given the complexities of digital capitalism's endless desire to produce data—we conclude by exploring some of the political possibilities that lie at the margins of sousveillance capitalism (in particular, the extra-epistemological political value of sousveillance).
The paper combines a broad theoretical framework of comparable capitalism with the insights from new economic sociology and new institutional economics to understand and assess mechanisms of China's evolution. During the last three decades China's economic system has undergone a great transformation from communism to some form of state-led capitalism. The evolutionary approach that balanced the interests of economic and political actors led to the gradual introduction of a capitalist institutional framework, but also preserved the immense role of the Communist Party. In the course of the reforms, former direct control over the economy has been replaced by more discretionary measures like corporate governance (which conserved the extensive patronage system), and Party affiliation (which allowed for political penetration of the private sector). Supplying examples of mounting economic waste, I argue that China's present variety of capitalism is hardly an optimal solution, and the further development will strictly depend on state and Party withdrawal from economic contorl.
Adventure Capitalism satirizes the misconceptions or prejudgements of the complex systems of economic and culture commerce between the United States and Mexico. What starts for our protagonist James Peterson as a simple attempt to get into the best business school in the country ends up showing him corruption of the interwoven institutions that make up the world he wanted to join, and pits his economic values against reality.Two main views on international capitalism are presented within the screenplay. Juana champions the Neo-Marxist view that core nations use their vast capital to develop peripheral economies in a way that makes them dependent on technologies that can only be provided by the core states. James and other Americans of the film trumpet the all-inclusive ideal of free-market capitalism. Both opinions are partially right and partially wrong. In a global economy, self-sufficiency is neither necessary nor desirable, yet completely free trade is utter chaos––where cut-throat tactics are the only means for success. The idea of free-trade celebrated by American politicians is hypocritically undermined by our government's attempts to give our industries every possible advantage, as illustrated through Earthworld Planet Connections and the interdependent corporations and institutions it collaborates with. A with many of our major institutions, financial or otherwise, it is not a part of a sustainable, reciprocal system, but one strung together by the personal connections of the top executives, who, in lieu of true development and innovation, attempt to gain monopolizing positions or to contrive the rules of the system to make success a simple formulaic task. They are not adding value, but merely creating that illusion.James and Juana's search for a source of home grown wealth in a fictional impoverished town in southern Mexico inevitably leads them to the marijuana industry. The War on Drugs, which is often reported as a rare meeting ground of both nation's interest, seems by all sensible measures to be ...
The French poet Charles Baudelaire wrote in 1864 that "the cleverest ruse of the Devil is to persuade you he does not exist!" I will argue here that this is directly applicable to today's neoliberals, whose devil's ruse is to pretend they do not exist. Although neoliberalism is widely recognised as the central political-ideological project of twenty-first-century capitalism, it is a term that is seldom uttered by those in power. In 2005, the New York Times went so far as to make neoliberalism's nonexistence official by running an article entitled "Neoliberalism? It Doesn't Exist." Behind this particular devil's ruse lies a deeply disturbing, even hellish, reality. Neoliberalism can be defined as an integrated ruling-class political-ideological project, associated with the rise of monopoly-finance capital, the principal strategic aim of which is to embed the state in capitalist market relations. Hence, the state's traditional role in safeguarding social reproduction—if largely on capitalist-class terms—is now reduced solely to one of promoting capitalist reproduction. The goal is nothing less than the creation of an absolute capitalism. All of this serves to heighten the extreme human and ecological destructiveness that characterises our time.
Like so many technologies before it, the drone promises liberation from the burdens of human existence: from work, wanting, waiting and even war. The drone, we are told, will watch our cities and our borders, it will deliver our goods and dispose of our enemies. It will do all this while keeping human bodies—or, rather, certain select human bodies—safe from harm (Chamayou 2015). Yet once the drone is abstracted away from the unmanned aerial vehicle and understood as the figure of autonomous, sensing technology (Andrejevic 2015), its logics become ubiquitous and its complex imbrications with our bodies inescapable. Essential to the emergent drone assemblage and to the affective form of its promise is the rising tide of techno-capitalism: military manufacturers, tech giants, start-ups, robotics labs, venture capitalists (Benjamin 2013, Gusterson 2017). This enfolding of military, industry and finance capital into the networked and mediating infrastructures of contemporary life means that drone capital is increasingly entangled in the everyday, impinging upon bodies and producing new modes, forms and flows of relation between the corporeal and the technical. Thus the promise of the drone is also the promise of a future transformed: of modes and flows of capital freed even further from the strictures and constraints of human labour; of space and temporality controlled; of technoaffected experiences of the body itself. Tracing the movements of drone capital from military expenditure, automated finance and logistics, this paper maps the affects of hope and anxiety that accumulate around the ambivalent figure of the drone and its bodily entanglements, impingements and potentials.
This PhD thesis is mainly based on a book published in 2006, Liberalism against capitalism (Paris, Fayard), which a revised and updated version is also included. The main aim is first to examine the contradictions between liberalism as defined in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and current economic practice: work without accounting value, antiliberal capital, capitalist state. It results from this that the widely shared synonymy between "liberalism" and "capitalism" is ideologically, and can be identified with totalitarianism in reference to Hannah Arendt's work, in this case a "soft totalitarianism". A distinction is made in the economic sphere between practices, norms (that shape practices), theories (that are supposed to reflect practices) and wording (which take the form of ideology). This distinction opens a way to think the economy in a radically different perspective, but in different way from John Rawls' Theory of Justice. In line with Ludwig Wittgenstein's analysis of language games, the aim here is to frame a new definition of economic actors and of the nature of their language (accounting language in particular). ; Cette thèse sur travaux s'appuie pour l'essentiel sur un ouvrage publié en 2006, Le libéralisme contre le capitalisme (Paris, Fayard), dont il est également proposé une version augmentée et mise à jour. Le propos consiste d'abord à examiner les contradictions entre le libéralisme tel qu'il est défini dans la Richesse des nations d'Adam Smith et la pratique économique contemporaine : travail sans valeur comptable, capital antilibéral, État capitaliste. Il en ressort que la synonymie largement partagée entre « libéralisme » et « capitalisme » relève de l'idéologie, idéologie que l'on peut qualifier de totalitarisme en référence au travail d'Hannah Arendt, en l'espèce de « totalitarisme mou ». Il est ainsi opéré dans la sphère économique une distinction entre les pratiques, les normes qui les façonnent, les théories censées rendre compte des pratiques, et les discours, pouvant prendre la forme ...
This PhD thesis is mainly based on a book published in 2006, Liberalism against capitalism (Paris, Fayard), which a revised and updated version is also included. The main aim is first to examine the contradictions between liberalism as defined in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and current economic practice: work without accounting value, antiliberal capital, capitalist state. It results from this that the widely shared synonymy between "liberalism" and "capitalism" is ideologically, and can be identified with totalitarianism in reference to Hannah Arendt's work, in this case a "soft totalitarianism". A distinction is made in the economic sphere between practices, norms (that shape practices), theories (that are supposed to reflect practices) and wording (which take the form of ideology). This distinction opens a way to think the economy in a radically different perspective, but in different way from John Rawls' Theory of Justice. In line with Ludwig Wittgenstein's analysis of language games, the aim here is to frame a new definition of economic actors and of the nature of their language (accounting language in particular). ; Cette thèse sur travaux s'appuie pour l'essentiel sur un ouvrage publié en 2006, Le libéralisme contre le capitalisme (Paris, Fayard), dont il est également proposé une version augmentée et mise à jour. Le propos consiste d'abord à examiner les contradictions entre le libéralisme tel qu'il est défini dans la Richesse des nations d'Adam Smith et la pratique économique contemporaine : travail sans valeur comptable, capital antilibéral, État capitaliste. Il en ressort que la synonymie largement partagée entre « libéralisme » et « capitalisme » relève de l'idéologie, idéologie que l'on peut qualifier de totalitarisme en référence au travail d'Hannah Arendt, en l'espèce de « totalitarisme mou ». Il est ainsi opéré dans la sphère économique une distinction entre les pratiques, les normes qui les façonnent, les théories censées rendre compte des pratiques, et les discours, pouvant prendre la forme ...
This PhD thesis is mainly based on a book published in 2006, Liberalism against capitalism (Paris, Fayard), which a revised and updated version is also included. The main aim is first to examine the contradictions between liberalism as defined in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and current economic practice: work without accounting value, antiliberal capital, capitalist state. It results from this that the widely shared synonymy between "liberalism" and "capitalism" is ideologically, and can be identified with totalitarianism in reference to Hannah Arendt's work, in this case a "soft totalitarianism". A distinction is made in the economic sphere between practices, norms (that shape practices), theories (that are supposed to reflect practices) and wording (which take the form of ideology). This distinction opens a way to think the economy in a radically different perspective, but in different way from John Rawls' Theory of Justice. In line with Ludwig Wittgenstein's analysis of language games, the aim here is to frame a new definition of economic actors and of the nature of their language (accounting language in particular). ; Cette thèse sur travaux s'appuie pour l'essentiel sur un ouvrage publié en 2006, Le libéralisme contre le capitalisme (Paris, Fayard), dont il est également proposé une version augmentée et mise à jour. Le propos consiste d'abord à examiner les contradictions entre le libéralisme tel qu'il est défini dans la Richesse des nations d'Adam Smith et la pratique économique contemporaine : travail sans valeur comptable, capital antilibéral, État capitaliste. Il en ressort que la synonymie largement partagée entre « libéralisme » et « capitalisme » relève de l'idéologie, idéologie que l'on peut qualifier de totalitarisme en référence au travail d'Hannah Arendt, en l'espèce de « totalitarisme mou ». Il est ainsi opéré dans la sphère économique une distinction entre les pratiques, les normes qui les façonnent, les théories censées rendre compte des pratiques, et les discours, pouvant prendre la forme ...
In the two ages of its existence capitalism has given proof of its reformability. It was, however, anti-capitalist blueprints and ideas that constituted a continuous spiritual driving force towards reform. Today, after the collapse of real existing socialism there is an urgent need for new alternative visions (de Gaay Fortman and Klein Goldewijk 1998). Without socialism capitalism is, indeed, impossible.
This essay looks at ways in which various branches of capitalist enterprise and their supporting mechanisms are often not as rational as they make themselves out to be, but operate instead according to magical premises. Magical thinking, as a mode of thought, creates or invokes extraordinary connections between things, people, organizations, and beliefs in order to understand, explain, influence, and occasionally predict, events. Magical practices involve magicians, magical rites, and magical representations ― almost invariably working together to perform the overcoming of uncertainty. And uncertainty, in the sense of unpredictability, is what underpins government, business, and the economy. The essay makes use of seven scenarios ― ranging from Davos and Brexit to GPS and Japanese manga ― to illustrate how politicians, media, education, and various forms of cultural production make use of language, technologies, and images to perform magic in contemporary societies.
