Suchergebnisse

This article contributes to the development of state capitalism as a reflexively critical project focusing on the morphology of present-day capitalism, and particularly on the changing role of the state. We bring analytical clarity to state capitalism studies by offering a rigorous definition of its object of investigation, and by demonstrating how the category state capitalism can be productively construed as a means of problematising the current aggregate expansion of the state's role as promoter, supervisor and owner of capital across the world economy. Noting some of the geographical shortcomings of the field, we outline an alternative research agenda 'uneven and combined state capitalist development' which aims at spatialising the study of state capitalism and revitalising systemic explanations of the phenomenon. Rather than the negation of an abstract model of free-market capitalism, or the rise of a nationally scaled variant of capitalism, we posit contemporary state capitalism as a global process of restructuring of the capitalist state (including in its liberal form) underpinned by secular transformations in the materiality of surplus-value production, such as the consolidation of new international divisions of labour driven by automation and labour-saving technologies. The political mediation of these transformations results in the combined expansion of state-capital hybrids and of muscular forms of statism, which develop in inter-referential and cumulative forms across territory, producing further state capitalist modalities. This is a particularly potent dynamic in contemporary state capitalism, and its tendency to develop in a spiral that both shapes and is shaped by world capitalist development.

Opening with an image of a Boeing aircraft falling to the ground, Hito Steyerl's video In Free Fall (2010) significantly differs from documentaries produced in the aftermath of the global financial crisis in that the work does not embrace a straightforward and detached didactic approach. Instead it mimics the spectacular quality of consumer culture by presenting the audience with a nerve-racking combination of theatrical performances, lively animations, clips of aeroplane explosions and snippets from television science programmes about recycling. This act of mimicry demands attention: is Steyerl's work an elegy to the possibility of critical distance under the conditions of financial capitalism and an example of accelerationist politics? Or is it an attempt to create an aesthetic of 'cognitive mapping'? This article offers an in-depth analysis of Steyerl's appropriation strategies and discusses them in relation to the theory of capitalism and schizophrenia of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari.

Since the first acute episode of financial crisis in autumn 2008, the world has manifestly changed in dramatic ways that reinforce skepticism and challenge the old assumptions of political economy. Hence this Article about central banks, whose pivotal role in post-crisis capitalism has not been adequately politically or theoretically addressed in any existing literature and can now be opened up by a conjunctural analysis that recognises uncertainty and mutability. There are several reasons why this is an intellectually and politically interesting task. Central banks have become an object of controversy and public attention after being pivotally involved in crisis management, which has since 2010 increasingly involved nonstandard monetary-policy crisis measures applied on a heroic scale. For example, in December 2011 and February 2012, Mario Draghi offered one trillion euros of cheap credit to European banks. This is a kind of role reversal for the bankers and a bouleversement of an institution that had been recently reinvented in a technocratic paradigm. After the 1980s, central bankers became respected econocrats whose technical practice was inflation targeting via shortterm interest-rate variation with freedom from political interference (or democratic accountability) justified by claims of technical mastery and neutrality. This Article that explores these issues is organized in a relatively straightforward way. Part II provides a brief overview of the scientization of central banking and the recent return to improvization. Then, Part III focuses on the peculiarity of a new conjuncture where the central banks have gone long on no growth capitalism. Part IV provides an overview of mainstream verdicts for and against quantitative easing, while Part V presents our analysis of the distributive issues.

The emergence of Capitalism is said to always lead to extreme changes in the structure of a society. This view implies that Capitalism is a universal and unique concept that needs an explicit institutional framework and should not discriminate between a German or US Capitalism. In contrast, this work argues that the 'ideal type' of Capitalism in a Weberian sense does not exist. It will be demonstrated that Capitalism is not a concept that shapes a uniform institutional framework within every society, constructing a specific economic system. Rather, depending on the institutional environment - family structures in particular - different forms of Capitalism arise. To exemplify this, the networking (Guanxi) Capitalism of contemporary China will be presented, where social institutions known from the past were reinforced for successful development. It will be argued that especially the change, destruction and creation of family and kinship structures are key factors that determined the further development and success of the Chinese economy and the type of Capitalism arising there. In contrast to Weber, it will be argued that Capitalism not necessarily leads to a process of destruction of traditional structures and to large-scale enterprises under rational, bureaucratic management, without leaving space for socio-cultural structures like family businesses. The flexible global production increasingly favours small business production over larger corporations. Small Chinese family firms are able to respond to rapidly changing market conditions and motivate maximum efforts for modest pay. The structure of the Chinese family proved to be very persistent over time and to be able to accommodate diverse economic and political environments while maintaining its core identity. This implies that Chinese Capitalism may be an entirely new economic system, based on Guanxi and the family.

This thesis contributes to the diachronic and synchronic analysis of the linksbetween the forms of capitalism and their environment. The first chapter proposes to highlightthe manner in which the coevolution between capitalism and the environment was carried outby crossing the theoretical and empirical contributions of the régulation school withenvironmental history and ecological economics studies. We reveal that the differenthistorical forms of capitalism have led to extensive and differentiated environmentalconsequences. Conversely, it turns out that the relationship with the environment has had amajor influence on the forms of capitalism, especially through institutional environmentaldevices (EID). The second chapter aims at deciphering in which extent these devices undergoa process of differentiated adoption depending on the contemporary forms of capitalismwithin which they take place. In this framework, some degree of correlation appears betweenour EID based typology of countries and the typology of capitalism. Finally, the third chapterfocuses on how levels of inequality, which are largely dependent on different forms ofcapitalism, can influence the adoption of EID. By means of an econometric analysis, weattempt to determine which mechanisms are most likely to explain this phenomenon. ; Cette thèse s'inscrit dans l'analyse diachronique et synchronique des liens entre lesformes de capitalisme et leur environnement. Le premier chapitre propose de mettre enlumière la manière dont la coévolution entre le capitalisme et l'environnement a pu s'opéreren croisant les apports théoriques et empiriques de l'école de la régulation avec des travauxdu champ de l'histoire environnementale et de l'économie écologique. Nous montrons que lesdifférentes formes historiques du capitalisme ont généré des conséquences environnementalesimportantes et différenciées. A l'inverse, il s'avère que le rapport à l'environnement a eu uneinfluence primordiale sur les formes de capitalisme, notamment par l'intermédiaire dedispositifs ...

The idea of capitalism, as interpreted by American society, has evolved into a decidedly consumer mindset. Businesses work to create the greatest output while achieving producer surplus, and consumers search for the greatest benefits in a supply and demand market. Our society is trapped in a dead-end of planned obsolescence and consumerism. Because of this we are creating greater social costs than we realize due to negative externalities associated with our actions. This leads to a great conflict between economic success and the protection of our environment. Long term costs need to be evaluated in order to achieve sustainability and allow future generations to live healthy lifestyles. Political ecology has shown that if our actions continue our environment could be unforgiving to us in the future. The intersection of politics and environmental science with economics is becoming increasingly more important in learning how to create efficient solutions to these problems and work towards effective environmental management.

Heide Gerstenberger bemüht sich in Markt und Gewalt. Die Funktionsweise des historischen Kapitalismus um eine empirische Zurückweisung der wirtschaftstheoretischen Annahme, dass der Kapitalismus sich selbst domestiziere. Direkte Gewalt als Mittel materieller Aneignung, so ihre zentrale These, sei weder ökonomisch kontraproduktiv, noch dränge die innere Dynamik kapitalistischer Ökonomie von sich aus zum Verzicht auf Gewalt. Ganz im Gegenteil würden Kapitaleigner_innen im den allermeisten Fällen jede Möglichkeit zur Profitmaximierung nutzen, wenn sie nicht von Regierung und Öffentlichkeit darin beschränkt würden. In einem materialreichen historischen Abriss vom vorkapitalistischen Welthandel des 15. Jahrhunderts über die Industrialisierung im 19. Jahrhundert bis zur globalisierten Ökonomie der Gegenwart schildert sie das jeweilige Ausmaß direkter Gewalt gegen Personen in den verschiedenen Entwicklungsphasen vor allem als Ergebnis politischer Entscheidungen. ; In Markt und Gewalt. Die Funktionsweise des historischen Kapitalismus Heide Gerstenberger challenges the theoretical assumption that capitalism tends toward self-domestication. She argues that direct violence neither contradicts economic rationality, nor does the dynamic of capitalist economy call for abandoning violence. On the contrary, equity owners most likely would exploit any opportunity to maximize their profit, if they weren't challenged by governmental policies and public opinions. Providing a rich historical overview from the pre-capitalist world trade of the 15th century to the industrialization of the 19th century and present-day global economy, Gerstenberger describes the individual impact of direct violence on people over the course of time primarily as resulting from political struggles.

Capitalism has won, is the verdict of many after the end of the cold war. For nearly four decades most economists and political analysts took for granted that the world options lay between capitalism and socialism. The virtues and shortcomings of the one and the other were debated and some tried to com­ bine the two. Military blocs were formed around the countries that claimed to represent them. This bipolar world collapsed with the end of the cold war. A unipolar world was born. Many concluded that capitalism had won. Is it really true?

The rise of "capitalist entrepreneurship" has been gaining momentum for the past three decades, or so. It is more than about economics, politics, and the rule of law - or even culture. Perhaps more aptly it is a synergy of all three. More specifically, it's a type of capitalism where entrepreneurs, who continue to provide radical ideas that meet the test of the marketplace, play a central role in the system. It is also a sign of the times, reflecting a profound blend of the newest technological achievements and oldest human habits: basic needs and not so basic wants.Arguably, capitalism has been evolving for centuries. It has taken many shapes and forms - good and not so very good. ("Capitalism can bring the best in products and the worst in people" – went one popular ditty.) Just to capture its ever changing and evolving nature alone would require volumes.

Despite the considerable influence of Esping-Andersen's categorization of three 'worlds' of welfare capitalism, researchers have largely neglected investigation of his dimensions of welfare state policy and politics. Building on and extending the foundations provided by Esping-Andersen, we explore the identities and consequences of welfare state regime dimensions. Our principal components analyses identify two such dimensions. The first, which we label 'progressive liberalism,' rearranges Esping-Andersen's separate 'social democratic' and 'liberal' dimensions into two poles of a single dimension. Its positive pole is characterized by extensive, universal, and homogenous benefits, active labor market policy, government employment, and gender-egalitarian family policies. The second, which we label 'traditional conservatism,' is similar to but broader than Esping-Andersen's conservative dimension. It features not only occupational and status-based differentiations of social insurance programs and specialized income security programs for civil servants, but also generous and long-lasting unemployment benefits, reliance on employer-heavy social insurance tax burdens, and extension of union collective bargaining coverage. Pooled cross-section time-series regressions covering 18 countries over the 1980s and 1990s suggest that progressive liberalism is associated with income redistribution and gender equality in the labor market. The principal consequence of traditional conservatism appears to be weakened employment performance.

This essay seeks to explain the constitutive role that space-time plays in the dynamics of capital accumulation. Through a close reading of David Harvey's work, I show that time and space work together in ways particular to the capitalist mode of producing, distributing, selling, consuming and disposing of commodities. This does not, I argue, mean that space-time is reducible to capital accumulation - there are, to be sure, other forms of space-time that are relatively autonomous from the now dominant mode of production. My aim is not to provide a definitive account of space-time tout court but, instead, to show both the organic connection between space and time within capitalism specifically as well as the necessary - rather than simply contingent - role that space-time plays in the dynamics of accumulation. My argument is that capitalist space is inconceivable in abstraction from capitalism's temporal compulsions, and that space-time functions as a concrete abstraction that internalizes the whole gamut of contradictions that Marx identified over a century ago. The essay makes its analytical contribution by surveying previous Marxist and non-Marxist contributions to understanding space and time in the social sciences, en route to a close reading of Harvey's Limits to Capital. The political implications of paying careful attention to capitalist space-time are explored by counter-posing Harvey's work with Doreen Massey's recent writings about spatio-temporality. © 2009 SAGE.

A world of change enables a new variety of capitalism to gain more and more power and influence. Through technological development, capitalism is increasingly influencing social, political, economic and individual life without its mechanisms having been clearly identified so far. This gap closes the Model of Behavioral Capitalism, which gives the approximate a structure that should enable a general discussion. This monograph consists of previous journalistic and scientific publications and supplements them with parts of the discussion. Translation of the monograph: "Erste Grundlagen des Verhaltenskapitalismus: Bestandsaufnahme einer neuen Spielart des Kapitalismus", by Andreas Herteux, published by Erich von Werner Verlag, 2019, ISBN 978-3981900651, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3469587. Further translations: "First Foundations of Behavioral Capitalism: A New Variety of Capitalism Gains Power and Influence", Andreas Herteux, Erich von Werner Verlag, 2019, ISBN 978-3981900675, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3469568 "Premiers fondements du capitalisme comportemental: Un inventaire d'une nouvelle variété de capitalisme", Andreas Herteux, Erich von Werner Verlag, 2019, ISBN 9783981900682, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3517802 "Le prime basi del capitalismo comportamentale: Inventario di una nuova varietà di capitalismo", Andreas Herteux, Erich von Werner Verlag, 2019, ISBN 9783948621025, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3517835 "Primeiras Fundações do Capitalismo Comportamental: Um inventário de uma nova varied-ade de capitalismo", Andreas Herteux, Erich von Werner Verlag, 2019, ISBN 9783948621018, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3517837 "Primeros fundamentos del capitalismo conductual - Un inventario de una nueva variedad de capitalismo," Andreas Herteux, Erich von Werner Verlag, 2019, ISBN 9783948621001, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3517839 "Первые основы поведенческого капитализма капитализма: Инвентаризация нового разнообразия разнообразия капитализма", Andreas Herteux, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3517841 De eerste stichtingen van het gedragskapitalisme - Een inventaris van een nieuwe ...

The general orthodox explanation for misinformation in American politics stalls because it fails to fully appreciate history and ideology. Instead, because American modernity is characterized by contradictions between its basic social forms this creates a bind for rulers. These contradictions mean that their rule is never stable, while acknowledging the contradictions risks courting advocacy that they be addressed which also threatens their minority rule. Due to the imperative to reconcile or mystify these contradictions, social problems are treated as anomalies or otherwise externalized; they can never be features of the capitalist political economy. Misinformation is a common by-product of this externalization as the capitalist ruling class uses it to weld together pacts and alliances that preserve the social hierarchy. To illustrate this argument, I draw upon examples from Reconstruction and Red Scares to argue that the same basic phenomenon is occurring in Russisgate.

A product's utility has evolved over time. In today's world, the commodities possess the power to define us. Every product that we own today, through its branding, reflects our social status, values and vice versa. It is difficult to refute the negative influence of capitalism that we witness in form of obsession with possession. The aim of the paper is to study the extent to which the products of the modern society like the protagonists in the following two movies suffer; whether it is possible to imagine an end of consumerism and not the world or has it become an inherent part of the late capitalist world in which there is no completeness but the perennial emergence of substitutes (objects). This paper studies the aforementioned issues through the movies "Fight Club" and "Confessions of a Shopaholic". The first section of the paper uses the case of soap industry as the foundation and analyses "Fight Club". The second section examines the role of credit card companies in compulsive buying disorder through "Confessions of a Shopaholic". Despite the similarity between the two movies on the grounds of the modern world "suffering", the paper highlights the difference in their treatment of the main theme of consumerism and links it to the gender politics. The final section draws a comparison between the endings of the two movies and investigates the premise of disorder in "Fight Club" and its existential threat to capitalism.

Originally published on "The View from Left Field." The growth of global far right political movements poses a threat to humanity. To defeat these movements, we need to understand their origins and their relationship to capitalist structures of power. Should political leaders like Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro be labeled "far right" or "fascist?" In this post, I will defend the use of "neo-fascist" to define both Trump and Bolsonaro, as well as movements closely linked to them, such as the Brexit movement in Britain.