Reproduction of social classes at the level of production relations

This article starts with a discussion of the capitalist production relations which are defined as the relations binding two types of agents of production and the means of production. These relations are considered from the point of view of ownership, expropriation of value, and function performed. The ownership element is given the determinant role in the sense that the owner of the means of production is also the expropriator of surplus value (exploiter) and he who performs the function of capital (non-labourer). Vice versa for the non-owner of the means of production who is also the exploited and the performer of the function of labour (labourer). There is in this case correspondence between the determinant and the determined elements. Thus the two fundamental classes under capitalism are defined in terms of correspondence among the three aspects of the production relations. But the concept of determinantion implies both correspondence and contradiction between the determinant and the determined elements. The middle classes are identified in terms of contradiction among the three aspects of the production relations. Thus, there are agents (‘the new middle class’) who do not own the means of production and who perform either only the global function of capital or both this function and the function of the collective worker. This analysis of the capitalist production relations provides the opportunity for introducing the concept of positions (a fractional unit of the capitalist production process) which has both a technical content (given by the technical division of labour) and a social content (just as the capitalist production process rests on certain production relations, so does each of its fractional units). Thus, an agent of production relations and thus can be placed, at this level of abstraction, in the class structure. Subsequently, the thesis is submitted that the reproduction of classes depends on the production of both positions and agents, where the former has the determinant role. This implies that there can be a discrepancy between positions and agents at the level of the economic, i.e. that there can be a discrepancy between the value of an agent's labour power and the value required by a position. The devaluation of labour power is an important example of such a discrepancy. A distinction is made between two types of devaluation of labour power: wage goods devaluation and devaluation through dequalification. It is the latter which explains the reduction of skilled to average labour (technical dequalification of positions) and thus also the disappearance of the global function of capital (social dequalification of positions). Thus, it is the latter form of devaluation of labour power which must be used to explain the proletarianization of the new middle class. A comparison is drawn between the two types of devaluation of labour power and the circumstances are discussed which can give the dominant role either to one type of devaluation or to the other. The rest of the article uses this conceptual framework to interpret the changes undergone by the Italian new middle class since its origins.     

Flooding Wall Street: Echoes from the Future of Resistance around Climate Change

The global capitalist system is ravaging ecosystems at a staggering and accelerating scale as it transgresses multiple ecological planetary boundaries, from massive species extinction to climate change, radically threatening life on this planet. Through analyzing power as a network of intersecting sets of relations, we can start to appreciate capitalism and the state not as entities, but as comprised by social relationships and local operations of power. This perspective reveals how effective resistance can be conceived in the form of destituent power – not as a direct clash with constituted power but instead as the withdrawal of our energies from and obedience to the political order. This destituent approach proceeds by deactivating the subjugating relationships constituting the system, thereby opening spaces to undertake constantly evolving experiments of developing new harmonious social and ecological relationships. Actions to disrupt and delegitimize the operations of capital, like Flood Wall Street, serve as tentative glimpses of ascendant destituent forces assembling against ecological collapse. The further challenge becomes how to connect the multiplicity of resistances, thought not in terms of a unity as a homogenous movement, but through actively cultivating their transversal relations across the rhizomatic network of experiments in practices of destituent power striving to realize new worlds.     

Trotsky,Gerschenkron and the political economy of late capitalist development

Abstract

The study of late capitalist development is often characterized as a battle between protagonists of market-led versus state-led development. For the latter position, Alexander Gerschenkron looms large, as one of the most significant theorists of state-led development under conditions of relative backwardness. There are striking similarities between Gerschenkron's explication of the advantages of backwardness and Leon Trotsky's concept of uneven and combined development and the privilege of backwardness. (These similarities have been commented upon often but rarely subject to closer comparison.) Indeed, both men share a common problematic – the comprehension of how economically backward countries could skip stages of development in order to join the ranks of economically advanced countries. This article compares their conception of this problematic and illustrates how in a number of areas the two are complementary. These are: their rejection of unilinear patterns of capitalist development, their appreciation of the role of states and institutions in facilitating late development and their understanding of development as a disruptive social process. However, in crucial areas the two diverge. These are: their comprehension of international economic and political relations, the role and position of labour in late development and, ultimately, the potential for late capitalist development to unleash social upheavals and further, non-capitalist transformations. Overall, I suggest how Trotsky's and Gerschenkron's approaches can complement each other, but that ultimately they represent fundamentally opposed approaches to human development.     

The economy and the educational system in capitalistic societies

The purpose of this article is to analyse the relations between the educational system and economy in capitalist societies. The economy is conceived here in terms of its technical as well as its social relations. The analysis here is centered around the capitalist labour market rather than capitalist technical relations of production as is usual in the literature on the relations between the educational system and the economy. This article is a preliminary attempt to break out of both economistic and sociologistic conceptions which dominate the literature on education.     

货币转化为资本是生产关系一系列变化的过程

生产关系范畴在马克思恩格斯思想体系中占有重要地位。研究从货币到资本的转化,必须以马克思恩格斯关于生产关系的理论为指导,必须把货币和资本不是看作物而是看作一定的生产关系,把从货币到资本的转化看作是生产关系一系列变化的过程。为了说明货币转化为资本的过程,需要揭示资本流通过程和简单商品流通过程的区别,说明资本流通过程的矛盾及其解决。在此基础上,说明从货币到资本的转化,是以往历史发展的结果和产物,是许多经济变革的总结,要以之前的各种生产形态的灭亡和生产力一定程度的发展为前提。资本主义的生产目的是榨取雇佣工人创造的剩余价值。产业工人在生产过程中创造的剩余价值是剩余价值的唯一来源。资本主义生产过程是劳动过程和价值增殖过程的统一。剩余价值是在生产过程中产生、在流通过程中实现的。资本主义生产过程和流通过程的统一,实质上就是剩余价值的生产过程和流通过程的统一。     

Beyond the Social Market: Rethinking Capitalism and Public Policy

Despite its worthy motives, social market philosophy provides neither a useful analytical framework for understanding modern capitalism, nor the policy tools to address our present economic and social predicament. The concept of ‘market failure’, with its underlying assumption of market equilibrium, does not capture the systemically adverse outcomes of collective market forces. A more sophisticated understanding of capitalist economies, and the societies in which they exist, would recognise that the market economy is a dynamic but not self‐regulating system. It is embedded in, and impacts on, four other economies – of the natural environment, of family and care, of voluntary association, and of the public sector – which operate under different motivations and allocative principles. The role of government is central, to balance the values created by different kinds of institutions and to constrain the dynamic impacts of market forces. A number of policy conclusions are offered arising from this framework.     

Capitalism,nature, socialism a theoretical introduction∗

This article expounds the traditional Marxist theory of the contradiction between forces and relations of production, over‐production of capital and economic crisis, and the process of crisis‐induced restructuring of productive forces and production relations into more transparently social, hence potentially socialist, forms. This exposition provides a point of departure for an “ecological Marxist”; theory of the contradiction between capitalist production relations and forces and the conditions of production, under‐production of capital and economic crisis, and the process of crisis‐induced restructuring of production conditions and the social relations thereof also into more transparently social, hence potentially socialist, forms. In short, there may be not one but two paths to socialism in late capitalist society.

While the two processes of capital over‐production and underproduction are by no means mutually exclusive, they may offset or compensate for one another in ways which create the appearance of relatively stable processes of capitalist development. Study of the combination of the two processes in the contemporary world may throw light on the decline of traditional labor and socialist movements and the rise of “new social movements”; as agencies of social transformation. In similar ways that traditional Marxism illuminates the practises of traditional labor movements, it may be that “ecological Marxism”; throws light on the practices of new social movements. Although ecology and nature; the politics of the body, feminism, and the family; and urban movements and related topics are usually discussed in post‐Marxist terms, the rhetoric deployed in this article is self‐consciously Marxist and designed to appeal to Marxist theorists and fellow travelers whose work remains within a “scientific”; discourse hence those who are least likely to be convinced by post‐Marxist discussions of the problem of capital's use and abuse of nature (including human nature) in the modern world. However, the emphasis in this article on a political economic “scientific”; discourse is tactical, not strategic. In reality, more or less autonomous social relationships, often non‐capitalist or anti‐capitalist, constitute “civil society,”; which needs to be addressed on its own practical and theoretical terms. In other words, social and collective action is not meant to be construed merely as derivative of systemic forces, as the last section of the article hopefully will make clear.     

‘Democratic Socialism’ and the Concept of (Post)Capitalism

This article explores the ‘democratic socialism’ being proposed by new left movements on either side of the Atlantic, and evaluates its claim to be a form of anti- or postcapitalism. It argues that in the democratic socialist worldview, the line between capitalism and socialism rests on the balance of power between workers and capitalists in the economic sphere. While traditional social democracy seeks to redistribute wealth but leaves relations between workers and capitalists within firms untouched, democratic socialism seeks to abolish private property in the economic sphere. Production is controlled democratically by the workers themselves, in league with a workers’ state. The article critically appraises the claim that such a scenario constitutes a form of postcapitalism. Drawing on the work of critical Marxists such as Moishe Postone, it argues that capitalism is not primarily defined by private property relations in the economic sphere, but rather the peculiar social form of capitalist labour. Unlike in pre-capitalist societies, for labour in capitalism to secure a continued basis on which to reproduce the means of subsistence, it must be socially validated as ‘value-producing’. The criteria for value validation is not set in the workplace, or within a single nation state, but rather on the world market. The article concludes that, for all its merits, the democratisation of workplaces does not overcome the need for this social validation, but rather constitutes an alternative form of managing the process of production in this context. As such, democratic socialism, like social democracy, remains susceptible to the same imperatives and crises as other forms of capitalist production, and so cannot be said to constitute a form of ‘postcapitalism’.     

An Obituary for the Third Way: The Financial Crisis and Social Democracy in Europe

Why has the financial crisis not served as an occasion for social democratic revival? It is because, with the ‘Third Way’, European social democracy became imbricated with the financial system in crisis to such an extent that it is in no position to offer an alternative to it. The financial crisis is the crisis of the Third Way. Furthermore, the Third Way was based on the faulty premise that it was possible to replicate USA's apparent success in the 1990s, which, however, was based on very particular conditions. The argument is pursued with reference to inter alia Third Way ideology, transatlantic relations, the political economy of capitalist variety, and the political sociology of mass parties.     

Structural versus Piecemeal Definitions of Social Issues: A Subjective Factor in Systern-Transcending Struggle

Virtually all social scientists, Marxists or non-Marxists, agree that various aspects of advanced contemporary societies have become increasingly interdependent. Therefore it would seem that piecemeal definitions of issues and social problems are becoming more and more inadequate in dealing with the crucial systemic characteristics of our societies. Decision-makers as well as the public need not only more information, but systemic information based on structural rather than piecemeal definitions of issues and social problems. This paper explores, firstly, how mainstream sociology and Marxism deal with the complexity and interdependency characteristics of mature capitalist societies. Secondly, it explores some normative conclusions about the type of political information and communication needed in mature capitalist societies, according to Marxist and mainstream sociological interpretations. Thirdly, it provides some empirical illustrations of how we can study piecemeal versus structural definitions of issues and problems in political communications and public opinion. Finally, some assertions about holistic versus piecemeal political communication and policy-making are briefly confronted with Popper's views about the compatibility of piecemeal versus utopian or holistic social engineering with political democracy.     

Public opinion towards welfare state reform: The role of political trust and government satisfaction

The traditional welfare state, which emerged as a response to industrialization, is not well equipped to address the challenges of today's post-industrial knowledge economies. Experts and policymakers have therefore called for welfare state readjustment towards a ‘social investment’ model (focusing on human skills and capabilities). Under what conditions are citizens willing to accept such future-oriented reforms? We point at the crucial but hitherto neglected role of citizens’ trust in and satisfaction with government. Trust and satisfaction matter because future-oriented reforms generate uncertainties, risks and costs, which trust and government satisfaction can attenuate. We offer micro-level causal evidence using experiments in a representative survey covering eight European countries and confirm these findings with European Social Survey data for 22 countries. We find that trust and government satisfaction increase reform support and moderate the effects of self-interest and ideological standpoints. These findings have crucial implications not least because they help explain why some countries manage – but others fail – to enact important reforms.     

The Two Pluralisms in Norway

In most countries of Western Europe including Norway, the last decades have transformed the population as a whole to become both more secular and more religiously plural. This has had consequences on many levels, and is still being processed. For state institutions and for the civil society including faith communities, it has clearly entailed legal, political, and social changes. The growing plurality has also challenged alleged mono-cultural perceptions of religions, and established many new discourses on religion, values, and diversity as such. In this essay I will first briefly discuss the present situation in Norway regarding religious pluralism and relate it to interpretations of secularity particularly relevant to the Norwegian context. Then I will go more thoroughly into the concept of interreligious dialogue and ways to understand this phenomenon as one of faith communities’ responses to religious plurality. As a social practice that may provide insight in how religious plurality is negotiated in a dialogue – it may be described as a practical exploration of religious plurality from the inside - but also how it may project positions towards various understandings of secularity. Peter Berger’s concept of “The two pluralisms” and his request for theorizing on plurality rather than secularity opens up further exploration of interreligious relations such as interreligious dialogue, and it may provide researchers working empirically in this field with new insights in their studies. This contribution will not contest Berger’s suggestion of “the two pluralisms” but rather explore it further through empirical studies and suggested models of interreligious dialogue.     

Value is Simple. Valuation is Complex

Value can appear so complicated that it is not only a terribly intimidating topic, but actually fruitless to pursue. That is, the concept of value is either a dead end or best left to the experts. We disagree. At the most general level, having value can be understood as having the capacity to be measured and compared against another thing (or a standard). This is consistent with Marxian concepts (which are elaborated with special reference to the capitalist value form), but it is also simple and general enough to provide a transportable frame for discussing the role of value and measurement in any context imaginable, whether it be a discussion of spiritualism, collective action, economic data, or physical science. Marx directs our attention to the political constitution of systems of measure on the very first page of Capital, and there is now a great deal of work in geography and in science and technology studies on the social constitution of systems of valuation. We believe a crucial topic deserves an accessible approach that reveals unities rather than barriers, and thus supplement them with the moral and critical political-economic critique made possible by Marxian value theory.     

Moral Courage: A Sociological Perspective

While many social scientists have written about obedience and conformity, few have analyzed the conduct of outliers and nonconformists who defy these forces by engaging in acts of moral courage. Among psychologists and philosophers, moral courage is often portrayed as an individualistic phenomenon that is immune to sociological analysis. This paper challenges this view, positing that social ties with like-minded coconspirators, an identification with ‘imagined others’ who espouse similar moral beliefs, and social interactions that awaken the conscience play a crucial role in facilitating these seemingly solitary acts. Drawing on two original case studies – a border guard who defied a restrictive immigration law on the eve of World War II, and a Serb who crossed the lines of ethnic division during the Balkan wars of the 1990s – the article illuminates the social dimensions of moral courage and contributes to the project of developing a social psychology of conscience.     

新马克思主义空间批判范式及当代意义

20世纪60年代末兴起的新马克思主义城市学派，以资本主义生产方式分析为主要入口，探讨“空间的生产”在资本主义体系形成和发展中的重要意义。其贡献不仅在于从政治哲学视角揭露当代资本主义的空间政治经济矛盾，把社会关系再生产的故事完整地叙述出来，从而完成了对资本“空间生产”的价值批判；更在于其坚持了解放政治的宏大目标——通过揭示人类社会变迁的空间路径，寻求重新定位“乌托邦想象”的可能性。这种历史唯物主义的空间化努力使马克思主义在新的时代条件下焕发出新的活力，为我们寻求马克思主义政治哲学的“当代出场路径”提供了一种理论启示。     

ASEAN sceptics versus ASEAN proponents: evaluating regional institutions

Since it was founded in 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has attracted both sceptics and proponents. With Southeast Asia’s economy growing rapidly and tied into all parts of the global economy and the region geopolitically important to the world’s major powers, how ASEAN manages its internal affairs and East Asian relations is crucial. The differences in how sceptics and proponents perceive ASEAN, and why they take up such contrasting positions, need to be fully appreciated as scholars and commentators review and assess ASEAN’s performance. This analysis uses three analytical criteria – effectiveness, legitimacy and efficiency – to juxtapose and evaluate the competing arguments of the two approaches so as to better understand how and why sceptics and proponents can examine the same institutions and events and reach very different conclusions.     

Money,State, Hegemony: A Political Ontology of Money

This article develops a political understanding of the money-form, its relation to value, to society, and to the state. It argues that the value of assets is based on societal relations. These value relations are expressed in a general measure of value – money. Money serves as the equivalent for all asset values. This general equivalent is conceptualized as a master signifier. Based on Laclau’s political theory and theories of International Political Economy, the article argues that it is the master signifier, which not only defines the assets’ value relations, but also constitutes the assets by assigning value. It follows that the value of an asset can only be determined when it can be expressed in money, and that asset values can only be made comparable when they can be related to this general money-form. Furthermore, the transition from a specific object or credit to the money-form is theorized as a political process. Money ultimately represents a specific political relationship resulting from hegemonic struggles. To conceptualize money as a master signifier makes it possible to understand money not as a neutral measure of abstract value but as a general measure of value relations resulting from political processes and social struggles.     

马克思对李嘉图地租理论的批判及其方法论意义--以《1861-1863年经济学手稿》为视角

马克思的地租理论是在批判和继承李嘉图地租理论的基础上完成的。马克思在《1861-1863年经济学手稿》中对李嘉图地租理论的劳动价值论基础给予高度肯定，对其地租定义及前提、级差地租、绝对地租等理论错误等进行了分析批判，指出其根源在于对生产关系非历史超历史的理解。马克思从现实的社会再生产出发确立了完备的地租理论，阐明了资本主义地租的社会生产关系本质，彰显出科学的方法论。     

论扶助公民权是构建和谐警民关系的基石

当我国从计划经济体制向市场经济体制转型,社会管理模式从静态封闭型向动态开放型转换时,警民关系在一定程度上表现出不适应甚至失调和冲突。这是由于相对于警察执法权的公民权过于弱小,两者并没有达到对等平衡,公民权对警察执法权不能实行有效的制约和监督,从而造成警民关系的不和谐。通过依托社区创建新型群众组织、对群众加强教育增进对公安工作的了解和引入媒体监督等措施来扶助壮大公民权,能够让警民关系达到新的平衡。     

Constitutional law in social choice perspective

Constitutional scholars do not typically employ spatial reasoning in their work. And yet, constitutional jurisprudence and much work in judicial politics implicitly rest on assumptions best cast in spatial terms. These include assuming that positions in constitutional disputes, and the views of Supreme Court justices, generally lie along a common liberal-to-conservative ideological dimension. Although the single dimension assumption is often appropriate, it suffers inherent limitations. First, Supreme Court decision-making rules, both within and across cases, expose problems of dimensionality. Second, important substantive doctrines likewise reveal dimensionality. Third, and finally, throughout the Supreme Court’s history, positions deemed liberal (or conservative) in one period have emerged as conservative (or liberal) in a later period, suggesting that dimensionality is a persistent feature in our jurisprudential history. Social choice proves uniquely suited to explaining these important aspects of constitutional law. After briefly introducing the discipline of constitutional law and its relationship to social choice, this article offers three illustrations of how social choice analysis deepens our understanding of important substantive areas. The analysis exposes dimensionality within Supreme Court decision-making rules, within separation-of-powers doctrine, and over historical shifts in the liberal and conservative valence of once-prominent jurisprudential positions. Failing to appreciate dimensionality, which lies at the core of social choice theory, when studying the Supreme Court and constitutional law risks a truly one-dimensional understanding of a richer and multidimensional institution and body of doctrine.