Suchergebnisse

The author tries to distinguish the main achievements of political economy of socialism, its contribution to modern economic theory and potential in analysis of post-industrial society. To his opinion political economy of socialism is useful for understanding the nature of "real socialism" (i.e. economic system that was really functioning in the USSR and socialist countries), future post-capitalist economic systems and transitional economy. Moreover, this discipline can be helpful in overcoming the market-oriented paradigm dominating now in economic theory.

The article presents the research on the social and class structure of modern society from the positions of the Post-Soviet School of Critical Marxism. It is shown that late capitalism is characterised by the active formation of inter-class and intra-class layers. The article reveals the contradictions of the 'creative class'. The 'creative class' is divided into (1) the people who are employed in the creatosphere and give rise to the phenomena of culture and the creative qualities of human beings and (2) those who 'creatively' produce useless goods. Then it is further divided into people employed in the (1) public and (2) commercial sectors. The author introduces the term 'the socialiat' to characterise the public-sector workers who comprise a protoclass within the creative class, shows the core and periphery of it, and provide the analysis of the precariat as the alter ego of the socialiat.

The beginning of the 21st century is also the beginning of a new industrial
revolution. Smart factories, the Internet of Things, bio-, nano-, and
information, and communication technologies of the sixth technological mode are
becoming a new material basis of production. The author of the book
Noonomy, Sergey Bodrunov, focuses on the current changes
taking place in the economy, entailing the birth of a qualitatively new system
of relations that is noonomy (Bodrunov 2018). This theoretical research, which
is purely scientific in its content, also contains an analysis of a wide range
of practices. It makes the book accessible not only to a highly professional
reader since it is written in plain language. This book is for everyone who
wants to not only understand but also contribute to the better future of our
economy.

Lenin's contribution to economic theory is studied by only a limited number of researchers, since most of the academic community considers referring to the investigations carried out by this author to be highly improper. The writer of this article shows, however, that even 150 years after the birth of V.I. Ulyanov, the Leninist theory of imperialism remains relevant, despite requiring critical development and supplementation. This latter is true, in particular, of Lenin's conclusions (1) to the effect that the process of monopolisation leads to the undermining of free competition, which corporate networks in the twenty-first century have turned into a system of relations of manipulation by market actors; (2) on the hegemony of finance capital, which in the present period has served as the cause behind the processes of financialisation; and (3) on the hegemony of transnational corporations and the division of the world between super-powers, which is now leading to the danger of a new repartitioning of the world economic and political space. Following a spiral of the "negation of the negation" (imperialism — social capitalism — neoliberal capitalism), the world is again burdened with problems that are reproducing, on a new level, the causes of the World War and of the series of revolutions in the early twentieth century. "…We need to know how to begin from the beginning several times over": how Lenin's conception of the socialist reconstruction of Russia's economy came into being.

The author proves that the decline of neo-liberalism and the growth of a new conservative wave are objectively conditioned. The prevailing model of late capitalism that has led to the domination of the market of simulacra, financialization and stagnation, called the 'new normality', cannot ensure the progress of the productive forces that are on the verge of not just another technological revolution, but a qualitative change - the genesis of the economy in which a decisive role will be played not by reproductive, but by creative work. Not just re-industrialization - the coming creative revolution - necessitates at least a deep reform of the currently dominant social and economic system. The non-realization of these changes is fraught with conservative regress of both the economy and society. The article provides a substantiation of this conclusion based on the updated classical Marxist methodology and systematizes the main directions of reforming the system of economic relations that respond to the challenges of the progress of the productive forces.

The authors, basing on a critical analysis of the experience of planning during the 20th century in a number of countries of Europe and Asia, and also on the lessons from the economics of "real socialism", set out to substantiate their conclusions on the advisability of "reloading" this institution. The aim is to create planning mechanisms, suited to the new economy, that incorporate forecasting, projections, direct and indirect selective regulation and so forth into integral programs of economic development and that set a vector of development for particular limited spheres of what remains on the whole a market economy. New planning institutions presuppose a supersession of the forms of bureaucratic centralism and a reliance on network forms of organization of the subject and process of planning.

Implications of the modern Marxist theory create the opportunity to show the inevitability, the reasons and the main features of the first world crisis of the XXI century. It has been generated by deregulation of economy, which caused the 'classical' crisis of overproduction, and by the new contradictions of late capitalism, in particular, by persistent over-accumulation of capital and by the excessive development of the transactional sector, of the fictitious financial capital and its isolation from the real sector. Marxist analysis of social interests and contradictions shows that anti-crisis measures require not only increasing of state regulation, but also determining on behalf of whom and in the interests of what social groups this regulation will be realized. The authors propose to do this on behalf of the financial capital and in the interests of citizens, but also formulate the neoconservative scenario of post-crisis development.

The article shows that "Capital" gives the key for the understanding of the anatomy of both classical and modern market economy. "Capital" is relevant as such for the analysis of the classical features of market economy which still exists. Critical dialectical method of "Capital" has helped to develop critically Marxist theory according to the changes in the economy. Analysis of production relations helps to show historical limits of market, changes in the property, actuality of old and new contradictions of capital. The article argues for special actuality of "Capital" for Russia; marks the problems which have not yet been solved within the framework of modern Marxism; critically considers dogmatic anti-Marxism which has become very popular among modern scholars and students.