The Marx’s Theory of Industrial Circles and the Innovative Models of Extended Reproduction in the USA
Ryzhenkov A.V.
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2018-4.2-71-93
Annotation:

K. Marx fragmentarily presented the theory of industrial cycles in “Capital”, which investigated the formation and development of capitalism up to the maturing of free competition. A brief review of this theory shows that J. Schumpeter’s criticism is superficial. K. Marx did not deduce the mathematical laws of crises. The present paper partially fills this gap for the state-monopoly capitalism on the basis of the laws of surplus value and monopoly profit. Two models are considered, the transition from the first TM-2 to the second TM-2m is an ascent from the abstract to the concrete.Whereas TM-2 endogenously reproduces cycles in the positive growth rate of net output, TM-2m endogenously generates industrial cycles with decreases in net output in crises. This is achieved by converting a key parameter of the automation function into a new discrete variable, depending on the excess accumulation of capital. In addition, proportional control over the rate of capital accumulation has been introduced.TM-2m allows comparing impacts of economic policies on industrial cycles and on long-term trends in the US economy depending on a target rate of capital accumulation chosen by the State and financial capital in distinct scenarios.In 2018, the crisis will start, opening the next industrial cycle ending in 2025 according to scenario 1 or in 2026 according to scenario 2. The state monopoly-capitalism is entering a new period of over-production when sound economic policy becomes even more critical.

Marxism as the Revolution in Economic Science
Tutov L.A.
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2018-4.2-61-70
Annotation:

The article is devoted to the substantiation of the status of Marxism as a revolution in economic science. To achieve this goal, the author has to resolve a number of methodological difficulties associated with the interdisciplinary nature of Marxism, as revolutionary changes may relate to the philosophical, sociological, political spheres of Marxism, but do not affect the economic area. The author shows the role of the ideological filter accompanying Marxism, which for a long time did not allow to grasp an idea of authentic Marxism. In addition, Marxism in its development has gone through several stages, so you need to choose a starting point to assess its revolutionary character. In the course of the study, the author comes to the conclusion that Marxism has led to fundamental changes in economic theory, having formed an independent direction of economic thought, which remains in demand in our time. However, from the standpoint of T. Kuhn’s theory of paradigms Marxist political economy is not the result of a revolution and a new paradigm in relation to the classical political economy, but it can be considered as its continuation in the form of synthesis of ideas of classical political economy and German classical philosophy, especially Hegel dialectical method and materialistic approach to understanding the nature of social relations, suggested by L. Feuerbach. However, the theorists of Marxism evaluate it as the result of revolution in economic science, since the development through contradictions and qualitative jumps constitute the essence of Marxism.

Ideas and Mistakes of Marxism in the Light of Historical Macrosociology
Rozov Nikolai
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2018-4.2-42-60
Annotation:

The paper discusses the most general social, philosophical and macrosociological ideas of Marxism. Marx and Engels used several arguments for their thesis on the socio-economic character of the "basis" when referring policy, state and entire spiritual and cultural sphere to the "superstructure". Each of these arguments is partly right but mainly misleading. The importance of material production for social processes and historical dynamics is not denied, but along with this factor there are always others, no less, and sometimes more powerful ones. Dühring argued rather naively in favor of his thesis of the primacy of power and violence. The Engels's counter-arguments are smart and sometimes sophisticated but should be revised. The analysis of social relations implicitly hidden in ‘property’ shows the fundamental nature of not only order, power and violence relations that reinforce property, but also the importance of normative cultural patterns and psychological attitudes. Technological progress loses the status of the main driver of historical dynamics and social evolution, it remains a very important factor, but only among other no less significant drivers of change. Social revolutions quite often eliminate the political forms that have become inadequate, but they are by no means the only, or the main, factors of such changes. The state is not at all an "instrument" of the class of exploiters (feudal lords, capitalists). The state and the state class (officials) are almost always an independent subject with their own interests, world vision, and resources. Marxism is firmly associated with the struggle for social justice, against class inequality, against the exploitation of man by man, against enslavement. As far as people continue to strive to improve their social status, class polarization, this or that measure of exploitation, social injustice always take place, and break through all attempts at restrictions and equalization. This means the inescapability of the demand for justice, which nourishes and will always nourish the high posthumous reputation of Marx, the emergence of more and more devotees of Marxism.

Karl Marx and Marxism in the Religious “Dimension”
Antipov Georgy
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2018-4.2-23-41
Annotation:

The placement of Marx, together with Marxism, in a religious context may seem strange, at least to those people who still remember “opium for the people” and “a sigh of the oppressed creature”. There is a habit of associating the author and his teachings exclusively with the forms of scientific knowledge. However, it turns out that a more careful and consistent examination shows that despite the prevailing stereotype of the exclusively scientific identification of the Marxist doctrine, referring Marxism precisely to the religious context allows to understand its true place in history and culture. As the Russian philosopher of the Silver Age, S. N. Bulgakov, said, religion carries “the highest and last values that a person recognizes above himself and higher than himself, and that practical attitude, a human being is put in, in relation to these values”. But what are values? Values are the ultimate basis of choice and goal setting. Religion is the social form of the hierarchy of values existence. The article substantiates the thesis that the genesis of Marxism was the product of a complex collision in a general cultural process that embraced philosophy, science, and religion in their interrelation. The features of the interaction of these cultural phenomena in a certain social context explain the culturological features of religion, which are inherent in Marxism.

Who Are You, Doctor Marx?
Klistorin Vladimir
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2018-4.2-3-22
Annotation:

The paper analyzes K. Marx’s theoretical heritage from the modern standpoints, especially regarding his political and economic works. The author tries to answer the question – why his ideas were popular in the past and remain popular at present. The author discusses K. Marx’s scientific program and paradigm and shows that his scientific program fundamentally differs from those of other leading economists of the first half of the 19th century and his paradigm – from that of classical economics. Marxism created his own original paradigm which combined elements of classical economies and historical school. The paper also shows how K. Marx’s scientific program and some basic elements of his economic theory influence the works of scientists working within alternative schools. The author presents his critical notes to several elements of K. Marx’s theory, namely his historical concept, sociology, and especially, political economy. The author pays special attention to the terms used by K. Marx which allow making ambiguous conclusions and avoiding the critics. The author highlights the influence of Marx’s works on the choice of the subject and statement of problems made by researchers of neoclassical, Austrian, and institutional schools of economics. A major achievement of Marxism is that K. Marx states the problem of how modern bourgeois societies emerge, develop, and die as well as their institutional systems which define the economic dynamics and distribution of public wealth. The way how the Marxists explain economic processes (such as dynamics of prices, profits, and incomes, cyclical patterns of production development, and many others) as well as theories of historical dynamics, why states rise and fall, class structure of societies, and inefficiency of decentralized market economies have not been verified. However, at present K. Marx’s works are very attractive due to the ambiguity of his criticism of bourgeois society and, above all, an aphoristic nature and emotionality of his works. The reason for this is an integrated character of K. Marx’s political, economic, sociohistorical, and even ideological and psychological doctrine. As compared to Marx’s doctrine, modern science is comprised of specialized sectors and, therefore, it is less attractive and understandable.