Anti-Psychologism in Economics: Wittgenstein and Mises

Ludwig Wittgenstein's arguments for the conclusion that whatever counts as thought must embody logical principles can likewise be deployed to show that whatever counts as action must embody economic principles, a conclusion which in turn provides the basis for a defense of Ludwig von Mises' controversial claim that the laws of economics are a priori rather than empirical. The Wittgensteinian approach also points the way toward a transcendence of the intractable disputes among present-day Austrians over formalist versus hermeneutical, analytic versus synthetic, and impositionist versus reflectionist interpretations of economic method.     

Ludwig von Mises on the epistemological foundation for social sciences reconstructed

This paper focuses on Ludwig von Mises’s attempt to establish an epistemological/methodological foundation for the social sciences (praxeology). I reconstruct Mises’s writings by disentangling the distinct realms of ontology and epistemology in his arguments. Although Mises’s line of reasoning is squarely based on the distinction between ontology and epistemology, he nonetheless tends to mix ontological and epistemological viewpoints in his argumentation, thereby clouding the issue involved. I believe this is one reason why the writings of Mises appear to be so difficult and engendered different as well as competing readings amongst Austrian economists. Furthermore, this analysis also allows us to assess whether or not Mises offers a sound theory of knowledge. I conclude that praxeology displays internal tensions and explain the reasons for these tensions.

What is extreme about Mises’s extreme apriorism?

There is something extreme about Ludwig von Mises’s methodological apriorism, namely, his epistemological justification of the a priori element(s) of economic theory. His critics have long recognized and attacked the extremeness of Mises’s epistemology of a priori knowledge. However, several of his defenders have neglected what is (and what has long been recognized by his critics to be) extreme about Mises’s apriorism. Thus, the argument is directed less against Mises than against those contributions to the secondary literature that assert his methodological moderation while overlooking what the most prominent critics have found extreme about Mises’s apriorism. Defending Mises as a merely moderate apriorist because he held only a narrow part of the foundation of economics to be a priori is a straw-man defense against criticisms of his apriorism as epistemologically extreme.     

Economic Calculation: Private Property or Several Control?

Abstract

As the centenary of the 1917 Russian revolution approaches, it is worth reviewing the past 100 years’ discussion amongst economists on the possibility—or otherwise—of economic planning under socialism. The socialist calculation debate is of fundamental importance, not merely as a specialist application of economic ideas, but as an investigation of the foundations of economic activity. Every economic action is premised upon calculation, every choice depends upon an assessment of the costs and benefits of each alternative between which the agent must choose. The view of that choice and its attendant calculation is constitutive of the schools of thought—Marxian, neoclassical and Austrian—which have contributed to the debate. An understanding of the calculation debate is therefore required to understand how these paradigms stand in relation to each other. This article addresses one aspect of that debate—the claim by Austrian economists that socialism is impossible because the absence of private property in the means of production precludes economic calculation. The article suggests that several control rather than private property is required for economic calculation, and that several control is consistent with public ownership of the means of production. The Austrian argument on this point, therefore, is without force.     

当代中国马克思主义政治经济学新境界——学习习近平中国特色社会主义政治经济学

习近平中国特色社会主义政治经济学思想是开拓当代中国马克思主义政治经济学新境界的理论结晶,回答中国特色社会主义经济发展的时代之问,构建出中国特色社会主义政治经济学的学说体系,并把其理论、方法运用于指导中国特色社会主义现代化发展的伟大实践,是历史逻辑、理论逻辑、实践逻辑的统一,是源于实践又回到实践的科学创造.     

浅谈建国初期农业社会主义改造对马克思中国化的影响

马克思主义经典作家在其著作中以及苏联在社会主义建设时期对农业社会主义社会化改造进行了理论与实践上的探索。中国在建国后进行了社会主义农业化改造,这次改造是在党中央与毛泽东同志的领导下进行的,在实践探索过程中,尤其是在试办山西初级社进程中党中央发生了争论,在争论中,党中央最终坚持学习借鉴马克思主义合作化思想和苏联经验,坚持实事求是的原则,积极支持山西省委试办初级农业合作社,在实践中对马克思主义合作化理论有所创新和发展,为顺利完成农业社会主义改造作出了卓越贡献。     

Economic Organization,Distribution and the Equality Issue: The Marx-Engels Perspective

This paper has four related themes. It demonstrates that Marx's Communism in its first or Socialist phase would recognize the essential inequality of labour on grounds of efficiency and growth. It offers an explanation for the apparent paradox that Marx and Engels championed a fully-fledged control system notwithstanding appreciation of the allocation functions of a competitive market system. It highlights common ground relating to market process between Marx and Engels and the modern classical liberals Mises and Hayek. And it traces the evolutionary nature of the Marx-Engels perspective on transitions between and within economic systems.     

The Way of the Social and Economic Development of China An Attempt of Historical and Synthetic Representation

The issue of social and economic development is an important part of theoretical and empirical research of the contemporary economy. China is an example of an economy which in a short period of time achieved success within this scope. Therefore it seems to be justified to draw the reader＇s attention to the factors and determinants which may be regarded as the key ones for the economy of China, both in the period of 1949-1978, namely, in the period of real socialism, and in the period after 1978, so-called ＂socialist market economy＂ to date. On the basis of an analysis of Polish and foreign reference sources and source materials, the author tried to trace both similarities and differences in China＇s economic development over those two periods, first of all paying attention to the Chinese authorities＇ pragmatism of governing in the other period, accompanied by limiting ideological influences. Maintaining the socialist system, in that period China worked out its own, specific principles, and rules of internal activities and activities in the international arena, which enabled to it the creation of a model, especially for developing countries, the system of economic planning and programming, its constant modernization during the implementation of economic tasks, with the consideration given to changing conditionings in the world economy. It was pointed out that with maintaining the laboriousness of the Chinese and their loyalty to authority, they make up China＇s economic power. The aim of the article is to pay special attention to the circumstances, phenomena, conditionings, and factors which occurred on the way to the social and economic development of China, which enabled it to achieve the economic success in a relatively short period of time. This success can be expressed by such indicators as for instance the poverty rate, the unemployment rate, gross domestic product, the value of export, and the value of foreign direct investment as well as other factors.     

大学生对社会主义核心价值观认同性的研究

社会主义核心价值体系是构建和谐社会的重大理论支撑,社会主义核心价值观,是社会主义核心价值体系的灵魂,它在整个社会价值体系中处于主导地位。目前,高校以各种形式对大学生的社会主义核心价值观进行研究。通过对社会主义核心价值观在大学生中的认同情况进行问卷调查,针对存在的问题,提出增强大学生社会主义核心价值观认同的对策,引导大学生树立社会主义核心价值观。     

中国特色社会主义理论体系的研究对象是什么

中国特色社会主义理论体系研究对象的界定,是中国特色社会主义理论体系得以成立的根据和发展的逻辑起点;认识中国特色社会主义理论体系的研究对象应以邓小平理论、三个代表重要思想和科学发展观之间的内在逻辑关系为着眼点,探讨其如何围绕中国社会主义运动的规律性,解决和回答中国社会主义建设和发展过程中的重大问题。     

Enrico Barone's ‘Ministry of Production’: Content and Context

Abstract

Enrico Barone's famous article on economic planning, ‘Il Ministro della Produzione nello Stato Collettivista’ (‘The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State’), which showed the theoretical possibility of an economically efficient collectivist planned economy, was published in Giornale degli Economisti in 1908. Barone's article has been widely cited, particularly in the comparative economic systems literature, but it has not been very widely read or analysed in recent years, and there is not much literature that places Barone's ‘Ministry’ model in the context of his other works or in its historical, social, or ideological context. The aims of this article are: (a) to analyse and clarify Barone's model in depth; (b) to place it in the context of Barone's other writings and the literature on the subject; and (c) to examine the apparent contradiction between Barone's hostility to socialism and his attempt to formulate the pure theory of the collectivist economy.     

社会主义经济的本质关系究竟是什么?——评胡钧教授的社会主义“等量劳动互换”本质论

胡钧教授多年来一直坚持和宣传的按劳分配中的"等量劳动互换"是社会主义经济的本质关系,与等价交换相对立,从而排斥商品交换关系的观点,不能成立。他的这一理论观点,与马克思的观点相对立。马克思将按劳分配中的等量劳动交换称之为与商品等价交换是同一原则的"资产阶级权利",是与"旧社会痕迹"相联系的"弊病"。这一观点也与邓小平的社会主义本质论相悖离。胡教授用社会主义"等量劳动互换"本质论,否定我国实质的商品价值关系的存在,断言马、恩关于社会主义制度下商品关系会消亡的科学真理在我国已成为现实。这不符合我国的实际情况。胡教授宣称他的这一理论观点得到党和学界的"极大重视"和认同,是"最突出的创新性见解"和"重要学术贡献",并为邓小平的社会主义市场经济理论和我国的改革目标"提供了理论铺垫"、"做了理论上的准备",也不符合事实。