关于社会主义的概念、特征及理论演进-从马克思、恩格斯到列宁

自从马克思主义创始人提出科学社会主义学说以来,对社会主义的认识并非始终如一、一成不变的,而是经历了一个在曲折中不断发展、不断深化的过程。本文考察了"社会主义"一词的语用情况及马克思、恩格斯和列宁在指称上的差异,在此基础上,本文梳理了马克思和恩格斯概括的科学社会主义的基本特征和他们后期提出的新见解,以及列宁的理论突破与演进。在经济文化落后于资本主义的社会形态里,无产阶级夺取国家政权之后,应该按什么模式进行社会主义建设,这既是一个理论问题,又是一个实践问题。探索"什么是社会主义",应坚持理论与实践的有机结合。     

Tribute Paid by the ICRICE to the Cooperative Movement

The International Centre for Research and Information on Collective Economy having been asked by the International Cooperative Alliance to have itself represented as an invited international or anization at the Congress to be held in Paris from 6 to 9 September 1854, its President, M. Edgard Milhaud. wished the Congress all success and paid the following tribute to its work:
      Mr. Chairman
      Ladies and Gentlemen.     

Marx, Marxism and the cooperative movement

This paper has a dual aim: first, to draw attention to a numberof passages in which Marx explicitly extolled the cooperativemovement and thereby confute the wrong but widely held assumptionthat Marx was inimical to the market and rejected cooperationas a production mode even for the transition period; second,to argue that the continuing neglect of Marxists both of thecooperative movement and of the passages from Marx (and Engels)that present a system of producer cooperatives as a new productionmode can be traced back in part to the late emergence of aneconomic theory of producer cooperatives.     

Marx,postmodernity, and transformation of the individual

Postmodernity raises for Marxism the question of what happens to the alienated subject's consciousness and purposeful action in the aftermath of its alienation. Arguing that some of Marx's own ideas can shed light on this question, I make a conceptual distinction between form of consciousness and mode of consciousness to capture what I take to be the kernel of his thinking on the transformation of the “average” individual and her/his consciousness in his Early Writings, and especially in the Grundrisse.     

Marx, devalorisation, and the theory of value

This article investigates the implications of devalorisationof fixed capital in Marx's value theory. It shows why an exact,algebraic value theory is impossible. It also indicates howanalysis of devalorisation provides a basis for understandingthe nature of crises.     

Marx,primitive accumulation,and the impact of Sismondi

Abstract

This article re-examines Marx’s well-known concept of “primitive accumulation” in relation to Marx’s successive attempts to give a historical explanation for the birth of “capitalism”. Marx formulated this concept for the first time in Value, Price, and Profit (1865), and extrapolated upon it further in the first edition of the first volume of Capital (1867). It signified an appreciable alteration to Marx’s original historical theory. Indeed, in his writings, preceding the publication of volume 1 of Capital, such as The Communist Manifesto or The German Ideology, Marx had presented a more straightforwardly linear conception of the evolution of human society, consisting of various stages, “capitalism” being the penultimate stage, and “communism”, the last. Within this framework, the most advanced nations, such as Great Britain and Germany, were assumed to be those closest to being on the pre-revolutionary cusp of realising socialism. However, from the publication of volume 1 of Capital onwards, Marx embraced a less deterministic conception of progress, focussing more than previously on economically backwards countries or societies “at the margins” (Anderson 2010 Anderson, Kevin D. 2010. Marx at the Margins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) and envisaging for them possibilities for historical development that did not inevitably entail the sort of industrialisation that Great Britain had experienced. This was particularly true regarding Russia, where volume 1 of Capital was welcomed and discussed precisely in light of these questions, as has been underscored by many scholars, notably Shanin, Wada, White, and Stedman Jones.     

Marx,Finance and Political Economy

ABSTRACT

Shortly after the publication of Volume I of Capital, the financial requirements of capitalist enterprise forced the financial innovation of bond and stock finance for joint stock companies. Marx intended to re-write Capital in order to incorporate this change. He did not achieve this. The economic analysis of capitalism with long-term finance was undertaken by Hilferding in his Finance Capital. Thereafter, a strand of economic analysis of production and distribution emerged in the work of the Austro-Marxists, Veblen, Keynes, Kalecki, Steindl and Sweezy, and the Italian Kaleckians, Joseph Halevi and Riccardo Bellofiore, which incorporated the change made to the structure and dynamics of capitalism by long-term finance. However, this shift in capitalist financing has largely been ignored in economic theory, while much of the heterodox analysis that seeks to challenge the role of finance in contemporary capitalism has not integrated finance consistently. The change from the classic capitalism to finance capital raises important questions about the meaning and relevance of Marx’s work today.     

Marx on division of labour,mechanization and technical progress

The paper reconstructs Marx's analysis of the development of the forces of production in terms of the interaction among division of labour in particular processes of production, social division of labour and technical progress. It also brings out Marx's conception of technical progress and establishes his view of the essential interdependence among the development of the forces of production, the process of capital accumulation and the expansion of markets; it further brings out the role of competition as a fundamental driving force in the interrelated processes of accumulation and of development of the social productivity of labour.     

集体所有制、合作制和股份合作制的比较研究

集体所有制是一种无法与市场经济相兼容的所有制形式,而合作制和股份合作制则几私人股份制裼一种过渡性所有制形式。但与集体所有制相比,合作和股份合作制是两种更不规范的所有制形式肉某种角度看,经们甚至表现出了某些比集体所有制更大的缺点。     

要完整地、准确地理解马克思的《资本论》——再评卫兴华教授的“政治经济学教材可以不讲‘资本总公式的矛盾’”说

完整准确的理解《资本论》,应该把《资本论》看成是各部分互相联系、彼此支撑的一个艺术整体,而不能将其看作是各自独立、互不联系的机械组合,应该充分认识"资本总公式的矛盾"问题在整个《资本论》体系中的地位和作用,并且要从思想史的高度认识它的价值,不可轻言"政治经济学教材可以不讲‘资本总公式的矛盾’"。     

Marx and the Development of Critical Political Economy

Abstract

Although relevant analytical developments were provided over time by the critique of economic theory, they did not succeed in inhibiting the occurrence of a full-fledged revival of the neoclassical interpretation of capitalism. The development of critical economics and its capability of checking the influence of the dominant economic culture have been especially prejudiced by the failed integration between the analyses of Marx and Keynes. Following Keynes, once the ‘inducement to invest’ had been singled out as the central question for the explanation of output levels, one should have promptly acknowledged that on this very question Marx's analysis was significantly richer and more relevant than Keynes's—the richness and relevance of the former ultimately resting on the great attention Marx dedicated to the complex question of the influence of income distribution on the capitalists’ incentive to invest. It is argued in the article that through the study of this influence Marx succeeded in putting together the essential elements of a critical theory of effective demand, based on the principles and mechanisms that govern the distribution of income between profits and wages.     

After Chayanov and Lenin: New paths of agrarian capitalism

The theory of peasant economy is dominated by two classic authors of largely contradictory views A.V. Chayanov and V.I. Lenin. This paper begins by setting forth their contrasting interpretations of differentiation among the Russian peasantry at the end of the nineteenth century, and the contrasting theoretical frameworks of marginalism and Marxism which underlie those interpretations. It then proceeds to set its debate against certain aspects of current transformations in the agrarian structures of Latin America which call for a transcendence of this classic debate. In particular, it is pointed out in conclusion that ‘family farms’ far from being a feature of ‘peasant’ societies, are more common and more dominant in countries and regions which have experienced a relatively dynamic process of capitalist development.     

Marx,Sraffa, and Surplus: Observations Prompted by Garegnani (2018)

ABSTRACT

In a posthumously published article, Pierangelo Garegnani (2018. ‘On the Labour Theory of Value in Marx and in the Marxist Tradition.’) depicts Marx’s project in Capital as that of ‘developing systematically the theory of Ricardo and [the] implications of social conflict’ implied by Ricardo’s ‘surplus approach to value and distribution’. This paper argues to the contrary that Marx’s theory of surplus value and exploitation differs from (neo-)Ricardian surplus theory in fundamental ways, and modifies Garegnani’s simple Sraffian model to illustrate the distinctive implications of Marx’s theory.     

列宁论无产阶级执政党的根本任务

十月革命胜利后，列宁在总结无产阶级执政党实践的过程中，指出无产阶级执政党的根本任务是领导经济建设，大力发展生产力，建立社会主义的物质技术基础，并围绕这个主题来加强党的建设，使党成为领导社会主义建设事业的核心力量，列宁的这一思想是江泽民同志关于“三个代表”重要思想的理论渊源。     

Marx,Veblen and Contemporary Institutional Political Economy : Henry on O'Hara

Welfare was reformed significantly in 1996, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was expanded substantially during the last decade. In the wake of these events, welfare rolls have shrunk dramatically and employment among the poor has increased, leading many to conclude that these policies have achieved important equity and efficiency goals. It is argued here that these conclusions are too strong. The work requirements and time limits of welfare reform create equity outcomes that are dubious and leave the potential for inefficiencies in the allocation of labor. The EITC excludes almost half of the poor population under age 65, rewards poorer working families less well than it does less poor working families, and provides a sizable work disincentive for a large proportion of its recipients. It is shown here that the poor are not homogeneous. Specifically, the very poor have a much higher incidence of physical and other disabilities. The ability to work varies substantially with income among the poor. There is a case to be made for a much more straightforward form of redistribution, such as the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). It is quite possible that a BIG would accomplish goals of equity and efficiency more fully than the current mosaic of redistributive programs.