Socialism,capitalism, or Chinism?

Is China still building socialism or has it already built capitalism? Or maybe both? Or maybe none of those two systems? Or maybe with the market reforms that deviate from the traditional socialism, it has created something different from the classical types of political and socio-economic regimes known from the 20th century? Some authors have proclaimed that there has been capitalism in China for some time; others claim that socialism has developed there, of course one with Chinese characteristics. Shortages have been successfully eliminated, but the economic system is unbalanced, showing surpluses this time. So, is it socialism, as the official Chinese authorities claim, or capitalism, as asserted by numerous economists? Tertium non datur? By no means, as there are yet other possibilities of system interpretations and the most fascinating of them is being offered by the present-day China, where a unique internal convergence is taking place. Features of socialism intermingle with essentials of capitalism and vice versa, creating a new, different quality. Tertium datur.     

关于当代资本主义的三个认识问题

对待当代资本主义的现状以及未来相当长时期的发展要有足够的清醒的认识,对待当代社会主义面临的挑战要有足够的充分的思想准备。尤其是要看到随着人类各个方面的进步,世界历史进程在加快,但作为世界历史进程的社会主义不可能在几代人和少数几个国家内瓜熟蒂落。今天的社会主义可能处在新一轮复兴的起点,而不是最终胜利战役的开始;资本主义可能处在当前周期的鼎盛时期,而不是已经拉开了最终灭亡的序幕。     

东亚福利资本主义的发展:以日本、韩国与台湾为例

论文考察了近年来日本、韩国与台湾的福利国家(welfare state)发展情况。通过仔细观察医疗政策、养老金以及与劳动市场相关的其他社会政策的变化,文章尝试探究在这些领域发生的变化,到底能在多大程度上佐证一个从发展范式向普遍主义范式的重要转变。论文解释了在这些国家和地区社会政策变化的要旨和方向,认为能够解释他们的政策偏离的原因,不仅存在于经济的重组中,同时存在于不断变化的政治形态之中。     

A transformation in the French model of shareholding and management

This article explores the French model of shareholding and management, identifying a significant transformation in the pattern of shareholding in the largest companies. In earlier configurations of ownership, first the State and then the system of cross shareholdings were at the centre of French capitalism; the new pattern of shareholding operates under a different logic and motivation. In effect, France has undergone rapid change from a 'financial network economy' to a 'financial market economy'. This new pattern of shareholding has not only broken the traditional system of cross shareholding, but it has also facilitated the arrival of foreign institutional investors who bring with them new techniques and demands on corporate management.     

总体性视域中马克思货币概念的三重意蕴--基于《资本论》及其手稿的解读北大核心SSCI

在《资本论》及其手稿中,马克思秉持唯物史观与政治经济学批判相统一的总体性视域,将货币置于作为有机整体的社会历史发展与资本主义生产方式中,揭示了货币所具有的劳动生成性、关系物化性与主体抽象性三重意蕴。从历史总体维度,货币作为社会生产劳动的直接代表与资本增殖中的生产要素构成了货币的生产本源。从结构总体维度,货币作为物化社会关系和劳资关系物化形式体现了货币的关系本质。从价值总体维度,货币作为现实的人的对象化与资本抽象统治的主体存在蕴含着货币的主体本性。马克思的货币概念超越了单纯的经济学、哲学或社会学范畴,上升为总体性、革命性的社会历史范畴,在破解人类历史上的“货币之谜”的同时,也祛除了资本主义的“存在之谜”。     

Rethinking informal labor in peripheral capitalism: the dynamics of surplus,market, and spatiality

ABSTRACT

The paper presents a critique of the discourse of precarity that assumes that regulated era labor relations in advanced capitalist economies represent the norm, while ‘irregular work’ represents a historical aberration under capitalist employment. We argue that this approach fails to inform labor theorists in any meaningful way as it conceals the differences in the social relations under which work is performed. The catchall term ‘precarious labor’ makes it difficult to design policies for specific social groups who are non-homogenous in social relations. We propose a Marxian socio-spatial class framework that gives visibility to three key dimensions: 1) the manner in which surpluses are produced, appropriated, and distributed during the labor process; 2) the spatial component of where work is performed, and 3) the degree of market-orientation. Recognizing on the one hand that precarity will always be a ubiquitous feature of capitalist labor markets, and that there are differences within forms of work depending on the social context and location of work on the other, has a number of benefits for contemporary debates. These include a better appreciation of the multiplicity of processes in which labor participates and generates radically new ways of thinking about anti-capitalist resistance across national boundaries.     

The development of capitalism in the Atlantic world: England,the Americas,and West Africa, 1450–1900

Abstract

The paper traces the development of capitalism in England, the Americas, and West Africa over a long time period, 1450–1900. The developments in these major regions of the Atlantic Basin during the period were strongly interconnected and ultimately gave rise to the nineteenth-century Atlantic economy which integrated the major economies of the Atlantic world. The development of capitalism in the three specified geographical areas is analyzed in the context of the interconnected developments. Central to the historical analysis is a discussion of the contending conceptions of capitalism as a socioeconomic system. The paper shows that the original conception by Karl Marx, which identified free wage earners separated from their means of production and entrepreneurs who own those means of production as the defining elements, was generally accepted by supporters and critics for several decades; attempts to redefine began in the 1960s. The paper contends that, unlike the original Marxian conception, the new conceptions fail to capture precisely and accurately the dynamic elements which distinguish capitalism unambiguously from other forms of socioeconomic organization and do not facilitate a sharply focused historical investigation of its development over time. The employment of enslaved Africans in large-scale commodity production in the Americas was critical to the development of capitalism in England and in the Americas, but the adverse effects on West Africa’s economies held back the development of markets and the market economy and, ultimately, the development of capitalism in the region.     

Family Firms,Networks and ‘Ethnic Enterprise’: Chinese Food Industry in Britain

Chinese family enterprises in the United Kingdom have penetrated many different sectors of the economy, including restaurants, wholesaling, retailing, trading, manufacturing, property development, computer services and investment holding. Among the companies in these sectors, those involved in different segments of the food industry, as manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers, reputedly feature characteristics of Chinese culture. A majority of these enterprises, for example, function as family firms. This study explores the assertion that, among companies owned by ethnic minorities, culture strongly influences form of business development. This argument will be assessed through a focus on Chinese food-based enterprises in the UK. Two family-controlled companies, Seven Seas (Frozen Food) Ltd and Dayat Foods Packaging Ltd, were selected as case studies as they are involved in key business components of the Chinese food chain industry. Through an in-depth comparative study of the history and development of these two firms, we consider the argument that Chinese businesses have evolved well because of family ties and their inclusion in mutually-beneficial ethnically-constructed networks. Through these case studies, we provide an alternative perspective to diasporic Chinese business development which brings into question the extensive use of the concept of ethnic enterprise.

关于马克思主义与现实问题的对话

马克思主义与现实问题需要结合新的形势加以研究 ,只有把马克思主义的基本原理同现实生活紧密结合起来 ,才能坚持和发展马克思主义。首先 ,不能回避当代资本主义的发展变化问题 ;其次 ,要正确认识国际社会主义运动的曲折问题 ;最后 ,坚定不移地走中国特色社会主义的发展道路。     

Logics of action and models of capitalism: Explaining bottom‐up non‐liberal change

Recent institutionalist scholarship has theorized the liberalization or “disorganization” of capitalism as the result of shifts in economic actors' “logic of action” towards opportunism. Little attention has been given to the reverse possibility that shifts in economic actors' “logic of action” away from opportunism might contribute to “embedding” or “organizing” capitalism. This paper builds on recent scholarship to theorize this scenario and then demonstrate its empirical validity with an historical institutionalist study of the emergence of such a “non‐liberal” institution in Switzerland in 1961. The theoretical framework links three “logics of action” – opportunism, enlightened self‐interest and strong solidarity – to Höpner's typology of capitalist institutions – organized, coordinated, and liberal. It theorizes the interactions between these logics and the social mechanism – goal signaling – that can explain a shift from one logic of action to another, potentially leading to change from one type of institution to another.