Suchergebnisse

In the article theoretical and methodological grounds of the "power-property" concept and its implementation in the research of socio-economic formations - ancient eastern societies, Middle-age, Soviet and contemporary Russia - are analyzed. The author intends to show the fallacy of the rejection (which is inherent for this position) of the methodology based on materialistic interpretation of social phenomena. The fruitfulness of the explanation of economic formation of society and the system of property, based on the specificity of the mode of production, not on the authorities of power, is demonstrated. The discrepancy of the "power-property" concept with the facts, characterizing economic formation of ancient eastern society and Middle-age Russia is shown, and wrongfulness of approximation of the economic system of socialism with that of "Asian mode of production" is explained.

The article is devoted to the critique of K. Marx's labor theory of value, which was started in 1884 by F. G. Wicksteed. This polemic is based on a misunderstanding of the scientific abstraction method and the dialectics of Marx. His opponents critisize Marx for not using the notion of "abstract utility". It is shown why the exchange value of goods should be based on socially necessary labor costs. The subjective utility value is not suitable to determine the proportions of exchange.

The author shows the changes that the system of commodity relations is undergoing in the early 21st century. These changes are seeing the market take on an all-encompassing character, and we are witnessing a comprehensive manipulation of market actors by corporate capital. The present-day market is limited and undermined not only by state regulation but also by a process of socialisation, which represents the totality of transitional relationships and institutions. Having characterised this new quality of the relations of the market, the author demonstrates the specific nature of these processes in contemporary Russia, where the most modern forms of market relations and the most archaic are being propagated simultaneously. The green shoots of socialisation are characterised by the contradiction between the retention of a number of the achievements of the preceding system, and the development of shadow state regulation and 'manual control'.

In this paper author studying the specific features of the economic system of the USSR, which made it possible to reach the victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. The main problem discussed is the economic conditions provided the advantages in the supply of Soviet Army during the war. In the clash between Nazi Germany and the USSR the sides had sufficiently different level of economic potential. The significant superiority in economic potential was on the side of Germany, and additionally Germany had a possibility to use the productive capacities of occupied European countries. Author analyzing the paradox situation: economically more powerful Germany could not exceed Soviet Union in the level of military production. Even in spite of loss of territories, provided almost half of industrial capacities, Soviet economy could produce more arms and armaments, than Germany. Author emphasizing the combination of factors, which made it possible for USSR economy to exceed the economy of Nazi Germany in the military production. The most significant of them have stemmed from the nature of the socio-economic system of the USSR. The planned economy provided the rapid structural adjustment of the economy to the needs of war and the highest level of mobilization of economic resources for the military production. Soviet economic system also made a condition for the amazing growth of creative potential of people employed in military sector resulted in the lot of technological and organizational innovations. These innovations provided the enormous growth in productivity. The support from allies (USA and Great Britain) was also significant. It covered some essential needs of USSR military economy, such as explosives and aluminum. But in the most dangerous period of 1941 and 1942, then the support from allies was on the minimal level, USSR economy could provide the effective supply of Soviet army.

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.

The authors argue that historical systematic approach creates opportunity to show that in the 21st century economy Human being is to a greater extent the subject of creative activity and at the same time is subordinated to the total hegemony of market ("market fundamentalism" - G. Soros) and global capital. Because of that Human being acquires the modified form of "human capital". This creates the deformed vision that Human being - the subject who creates all social wealth and culture - is not more than "capital", an object of private property assigned for market transactions. The alternative approach, which stresses the active role of Human being and the necessity to develop all human qualities, opens space for realization of the programs "information for everyone", "education for everyone" and so on.

The limited ability of neoclassical "mainstream" to explain deep fundamental shifts in economic structures of the present day world determines the renaissance of alternative schools of economic theory, including Marxism. The article is aimed to show theoretical concepts of modern Russian neomarxism, which has a potential to explain the contradictions of the capitalist globalization, the tendencies of forming new types of socioeconomic relations, of the specific forms of transition economies in the post-socialist countries and basic causes of the birth and collapse of the socialist system.

The authors criticize the main idea of the paper by E. Gaydar and V. Mau (VE, 2004, No 5, 6) concerning the possibility of partial utilization of Marxian ideas in the framework of the liberal doctrine and formation of "liberal Marxism". The thesis that the revolutionary conclusions of Marxism are directly connected with its theoretical foundations is argued in the article. The necessity to correct some initial Marxian concepts caused by changing facts of real life doesn't lead to the negation of his fundamental ideas. On the contrary such corrections form the possibility to underpin the theoretical grounding under the revolutionary potential produced by contradictions of modern capitalism entering the epoque of the post-industrial society and globalization.

The "marketocentric" economic theory is now dominating in modern science (similar to Ptolemeus geocentric model of the Universe in the Middle Ages). But market economy is only one of different types of economic systems which became the main mode of resources allocation and motivation only in the end of the 19th century. Authors point to the necessity of the analysis of both pre-market and post-market relations. Transition towards the post-industrial neoeconomy requires "Copernical revolution" in economic theory, rejection of marketocentric orientation, which has become now not only less fruitful, but also dogmatically dangerous, leading to the conservation and reproduction of "market fundamentalism".