Showing papers on "Capitalism published in 1968"
••
TL;DR: In this article, Frank lays to rest the myth of Latin American feudalism, demonstrating in the process the impossibility of a bourgeois revolution in a part of the world which is already part and parcel of the capitalist system.
Abstract: The four essays in this book offer a sweeping reinterpretation of Latin American history as an aspect of the world-wide spread of capitalism in its commercial and industrial phases. Dr. Frank lays to rest the myth of Latin American feudalism, demonstrating in the process the impossibility of a bourgeois revolution in a part of the world which is already part and parcel of the capitalist system.
635 citations
••
305 citations
••
TL;DR: For example, the authors defined economic maturity as a state of affairs where real income per head had reached broadly the same level in the different sectors of the economy, i.e., a state in which real income was equal to or higher than the marginal product of all workers.
Abstract: Professor Wolfe attacks me (in the May, 1968 issue of Economica) for being obscure and unconvincing in the inaugural lecture which I gave at Cambridge.1 In this lecture I attempted to put forward a complex thesis concerning the causes of high and low rates of economic growth under capitalism, and this was necessarily somewhat scanty; there is a limit to the material one can pack into a single lecture. Such a treatment could only be successful if received with imagination and some goodwill; Professor Wolfe has picked on a large number of individual points (many of them trivial in substance) without attempting to come to grips with the thesis as a whole. I propose to publish a more comprehensive statement of the theory in due course.2 Meanwhile rather than follow the negative approach of answering each point in turn-which would be both tedious and unconstructive-I shall concentrate on the main points which have clearly not been understood. Foremost among these is my notion of "economic maturity". This is not some vague notion which can be defined in terms of "a situation in which there is relatively small employment in agriculture". In my lecture I defined it explicitly "as a state of affairs where real income per head had reached broadly the same level in the different sectors of the economy". I could have added, to convey its significance better, that ''economic maturity" could also be defined as "the end of the dual economy"; or a situation in which "surplus labour" is exhausted; or one in which "growth with unlimited supplies of labour" (to use Arthur Lewis' phrase) is no longer possible. The neo-classical framework of thought cannot accommodate notions like "disguised unemployment", the "dual economy", or the distinction between "capitalist" and "pre-capitalist" enterprise. For neo-classical theory assumes that the structure of demand determines the distribution of resources between different uses; that competition and mobility assures that "factor prices" tend to equality in all employments; that profit maximization ensures equality of factor prices with the value of the marginal products of factors; subject only to friction
157 citations
••
72 citations
•
01 Jan 1968
Abstract: Reading is a hobby to open the knowledge windows. Besides, it can provide the inspiration and spirit to face this life. By this way, concomitant with the technology development, many companies serve the e-book or book in soft file. The system of this book of course will be much easier. No worry to forget bringing the capitalism primitive and modern some aspects of tolai economic growth book. You can open the device and get the book by on-line.
62 citations
••
59 citations
••
TL;DR: The first major attack on the traditional view was made in the English-speaking world by Dr Eric Williams as mentioned in this paper, who argued that humanitarians, the key figures in what amounted to a parade of virtue, had been "seriously misunderstood and grossly exaggerated by men who have sacrificed scholarship to sentimentality and, like the scholastics of old, placed faith before reason and evidence".
Abstract: HE unweary, unostentatious, and inglorious crusade of England against slavery may probably be regarded as among the three or four perfectly virtuous pages comprised in the history of nations."2 Whilst the mass of Englishmen probably continue to believe that Wilberforce and his Evangelical brethren secured the abolition of the slave trade and slavery in a manner wholly creditable to themselves and only a little less to their country, it would also seem that, at the scholarly level, the dictum of Lecky was only a slightly extreme form of the view commonly held until about the midway point of the present century. Prof. Coupland, in particular, had in the inter-war years substantially endorsed Lecky.3 Admittedly the West Indian writer, C. L. R. James, had argued in I 938 that Pitt's humanitarianism in the I 790's was, at best, subordinate to a global strategy aimed at breaking the monopoly of the continental market enjoyed by San Domingo sugar, and replacing it with British sugar.4 But this was an incidental theme in a work of Marxist historical interpretation, and it is doubtful if this minor strand attracted much attention. When in I944 Dr Eric Williams launched a frontal attack on the traditional view, it was the first major onslaught to be made in the English-speaking world. For the author of Capitalism and Slavery5 the perspectives of men like Coupland, C. M. MacInnes,6 and F. J. Klingberg7 were all wrong. The role of the humanitarians, the key figures in what amounted to a parade of virtue, had been "seriously misunderstood and grossly exaggerated by men who have sacrificed scholarship to sentimentality and, like the scholastics of old, placed faith before reason and evidence".8 Positively, and in Williams's own words, Capitalism and Slavery was "strictly an economic study of the role of Negro slavery and the slave trade in providing the capital which financed the Industrial Revolution in England and of mature industrial capitalism in destroying the slave system".9 The immediate formal reception of the book was muted, doubtless because of the distractions of war time: no more than summary reviews appear to have been published. But in the following years the book came to gain considerable favour amongst historians, and also amongst many English-speaking West African intellectuals who saw it as a bed-rock statement of Afro-European relations before the colonial period. In the former case a sympathy with the growing cause of
39 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present an analysis of Transvaal white politics, showing that some gold-mining companies (the J. B. Robinson group, Barnato's and sometimes the companies of Albu and Goertz) were hostile to the influence of larger companies (Eckstein's and Consolidated Gold Fields).
Abstract: It has become a tradition to portray Transvaal history as a struggle between Boer nationalism and international capitalism, from the beginnings of large-scale gold mining in the 1880s until the electoral victory of General Botha and Het Volk in 1907. J. A. Hobson, writing in 1899–1900, predicted that after—as before—the South African War, the Imperial Government would have to face the dilemma of choosing between ‘an oligarchy of financial Jews, and the restoration of Boer domination’, since there was no other basis of political power. In his analysis of Transvaal white politics, he admitted that some gold-mining companies (the J. B. Robinson group, Barnato's and sometimes the companies of Albu and Goertz) were hostile to the influence of larger companies (Eckstein's and Consolidated Gold Fields), but denied that this affected the monolithic nature of international capitalism in the Transvaal. Later writers on the period, who have rejected almost everything that Hobson wrote, have nevertheless endorsed his interpretation. The Boer leaders were understandably happy to approve of such an analysis, since it placed them in a flattering light as the only realistic salvation for a magnate-dominated society. General Botha, for example, ardently courted the white working men on the Rand after the War, stressing the identity of material interests between farmers and artisans, in the face of the capitalist threat. General Smuts presented a more subtle and persuasive version of the argument, when attempting to persuade the Colonial Office to grant responsible government to the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
35 citations
•
15 Jan 1968TL;DR: Mencher as discussed by the authors provides a historical and philosophical background on the growth of welfare policy through its sources, concepts, and specific programs, and discusses mercantilism, laissez-faire, utilitarianism, liberalism, socialism, romanticism, social Darwinism, and modern capitalism as major influences on economic security policy.
Abstract: The welfare state is a pervasive and controversial aspect of contemporary society. Samuel Mencher provides a historical and philosophical background on the growth of welfare policy through its sources, concepts, and specific programs. He covers a period from the English Poor Law of the sixteenth century through contemporary times-viewing changing attitudes toward poverty, new concepts on the nature of man and the influence of scientific thought-and also discusses mercantilism, laissez-faire, utilitarianism, liberalism, socialism, romanticism, social Darwinism, and modern capitalism as major influences on the growth of economic security policy.
•
01 Jan 1968
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a survey of the history of economic growth in the United States from 1790 to 1861, focusing on three major periods: the dependent years (1790-1861), the colonial years, the national market, and the transition from state aid to development.
Abstract: 1. The Matter of method 2. The Dependent years: I i. The question of colonial economic growth ii. Colonial economic expansion iii. Land iv. Production for subsistence and for market v. The Planters: sources of operating capital vi. The planters: the question of capital losses 3. The dependent years: II i. The Protestant ethic ii.The merchants iii. 'Political capitalism' iv. Social Structure v. The role of government 4. Economic Growth, 1790-1861 i. Central versus local control ii. The Constitution and the national market iii. The national debt iv. The development program of Robert Morris v. Other early interest in internal improvements vi. Hamilton's program vii. The legislation of the 1790s viii. Federal legislation adn community will ix. Later federal aids to development 6. The Shift from Federal Aid i. State aid to development ii. The quasi-public corporation iii. Foreign investment in the United States iv. Corporate expansion 7. The Private Sector i. Private sourecs of capital funds ii. The formation of the national market iii. the origins of technological trade in industry and agriculture 8. The Social and Cultural Dimension i. Education ii. Values and social structure 9. Epilogue
••
TL;DR: In this paper, it has been argued that the analysis of capitalistic economic processes contained in Marx's Capital is not dependent upon the play of relative prices, as neoclassical economics is, and the long controversy over the "transformation problem" initiated by the appearance of the first volume of Capital in 1867 now appears to have been a discussion of a technically interesting, but rather unimportant difficulty.
Abstract: It has generally been conceded, even by economists who are sympathetic to Marxian thought, that Marx's version of the labor theory of value is no more adequate as a theory of relative prices than is that of the English classical economists. The analysis of capitalistic economic processes contained in Marx's Capital is not, however, dependent upon the play of relative prices, as neoclassical economics is, and the long controversy over the "transformation problem" initiated by the appearance of the first volume of Capital in 1867 now appears to have been a discussion of a technically interesting, but rather unimportant difficulty. If Marx's analysis is treated entirely as a macroeconomic model of capitalism, it is not necessary to show any correspondence between particular market prices and "values" measured in labor terms. Measuring output (as Marx defined it) in terms of prices and in terms of labor values generates the same aggregate sum simply because an inherent property of an arithmetic mean is that the algebraic sum of deviations from it equals zero. Difficulties commence when one attempts to divide the economy analytically into sectors, as Marx does in his "reproduction" models, but one can still proceed by relating the sectorial price and value aggregates to one another via specified coefficients.1 This method is similar to the employment of Lagrange multipliers in handling constraints in modern programing analysis. But if there is no essential difference between measuring aggregate output in terms of market prices and in terms of "socially necessary, abstract labor units," why bother with the latter at all? Such labor units are not directly observable, nor is it conceivable that an adequate procedure could be devised which would render them measurable independent of market prices. Why not simply drop the labor theory of value entirely and carry through the analysis in terms of prices? This question has often been
••
••
TL;DR: In this paper, Frank lays to rest the myth of Latin American feudalism, demonstrating in the process the impossibility of a bourgeois revolution in a part of the world which is already part and parcel of the capitalist system.
Abstract: The four essays in this book offer a sweeping reinterpretation of Latin American history as an aspect of the world-wide spread of capitalism in its commercial and industrial phases. Dr. Frank lays to rest the myth of Latin American feudalism, demonstrating in the process the impossibility of a bourgeois revolution in a part of the world which is already part and parcel of the capitalist system.
••
•
TL;DR: For some considerable time now, many people, who see themselves as part of the "democratic left", as liberal and even radical critics of the existing social order, and as anything but its apologists, have argued that the question of alternatives to capitalism had been rendered obsolete by the internal developments of the system itself; capitalism has been so thoroughly transformed in the last few decades that the need to abolish it has conveniently disappeared as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The intellectual defence of capitalism has long ceased to be confined to the simple celebration of its virtues; or even to the argument that, whatever might be said against it, it was still a much better system, on economic, social and political grounds, than any conceivable alternative to it. Such arguments are of course still extensively used. But they belong to an older school of apologetics; and for some considerable time now, many people, who see themselves as part of the "democratic left", as liberal and even radical critics of the existing social order, and as anything but its apologists, have argued that the question of alternatives to capitalism had been rendered obsolete by the internal developments of the system itself; capitalism, the argument goes, has been so thoroughly transformed in the last few decades that the need to abolish it has conveniently disappeared. The job, for all practical purposes, has been done by the "logic of industrialization", which is well on the way to erasing all meaningful differences between "industrial systems", whatever misleading labels they may choose to pin upon themselves. Dinosaur socialists will, no doubt, continue to peddle their unwanted ideological wares; for their part, serious men with a bent for reform will address themselves to the real problems of what Mr. Crosland long ago called "post-capitalist" societies.
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present Institutionalism in the Folklore of Capitalism: A Critique of Thurman W. Arnold, a critic of Arnold's "Institutionalism of Capitalism".
Abstract: (1968). Institutionalism in the Folklore of Capitalism: A Critique of Thurman W. Arnold. Journal of Economic Issues: Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 423-434.
••
TL;DR: A focal point of Lenin's theory of imperialism is the classification of imperialism as a special stage in the development of capitalism, arising towards the end of the 19th century as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: A focal point of Lenin's theory of imperialism is the classification of imperialism as a special stage in the development of capitalism, arising towards the end of the 19th century. This attempt to give imperialism such a specific historical reference date has been a subject of controversy, the main objection being that many of the features considered characteristic of imperialism are found early in the game and throughout the history of capitalism: the urgency to develop a world market, the struggle to control foreign sources of raw materials, the competitive hunt for colonies, and the tendency towards concentration of capital.This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.
••
••
TL;DR: The Cultural Revolution Group in Peking has accused Liu Shao-ch'i of being the "Khrushchev of China," plotting to restore capitalism as mentioned in this paper, which raises a number of different, albeit related, issues which will be explored in the present paper.
Abstract: Introduction: The Cultural Revolution Group in Peking has accused Liu Shao-ch'i of being the "Khrushchev of China," plotting to restore capitalism. This accusation raises a number of different, albeit related, issues which will be explored in the present paper. First, although the "revisionist" conspiracy headed by Liu is supposed to have led a covert, and sometimes not so covert, existence for a long time,1 why had the issue not been raised earlier, before the onslaught of the Cultural Revolution? Did the winter of 1965-1966, when the Cultural Revolution first broke out, possess some special significance in terms of China's economic system and its development? Secondly, if the timing of the campaign against Liu's policies was significant, what would have happened had these policies been allowed to be carried out? Speaking objectively, can one really equate Liu's policies with an effort to restore capitalism? Would they have had such an effect, and if so, would the effect have been intended? In this connection, we do not of course have to take the accusations against Liu at their face value. For it is conceivable that Liu had chosen to pursue certain policies which could be interpreted by doctrinaire ideologues as "revisionist" without in the least intending to subvert Communist rule in China. (Surely, to assume the opposite, as is literally implied in the accusations, borders on the preposterous.) But if this is the case, one must then question the rationale of going beyond a mere accusation of unintentional deviation in ideology on Liu's part. To charge him of unintentional subversion of Chinese Communism requires additional explanations. One suspects that these explanations may shed light on another side of the Cultural Revolution, namely, the political struggle for succession. While a great deal has already been written on the Cultural Revolution, what will happen in the post-GPCR and, sooner or later, the post-Mao period is an issue on which there still is room for speculation. What constitutes the best economic institutions and policies for China at this stage of her development looms large in the ideological "rectification" which the Cultural Revolution attempts to perpetrate. Economics, however, is not simply a topic on which serious differences in attitude and policy are registered. As we shall see, there are reasons to believe that eco-
•
01 Jan 1968
•
TL;DR: In this article, Thorner's own analysis of the agrarian scene in temporary India suggests that the type of capitalist farming most likely to spread is predatory rather than welfare-oriented, and that Indian agricultural workers can promote their own welfare best by organizing themselves into powerful labour federations.
Abstract: Daniel Thorner "Welfare Capitalism" is the principal positive recommendation for agriculture offered by Gunnar Myrdal in his important treatise, "Asian Drama". Yet his own analysis of the agrarian scene in con- temporary India suggests that the type of capitalist farming most likely to spread is predatory rather than welfare-oriented. It follows logically that Indian agricultural workers can promote their own welfare best by organising themselves into powerful labour federations.
••
TL;DR: In this article, Roberts and Stephenson argue that the goal of a socialist society is the abolition of alienation and that Marx sees central economic planning as the means by which alienation in the Marxist sense is eliminated in the socialist society.
Abstract: IN THEIR NOTE, "Alienation and Central Planning in Marx," Professors Roberts and Stephenson maintain that for Marx "the goal of a socialist society" is "the abolition of alienation" and that Marx sees "central economic planning as the means by which alienation in the Marxist sense is eliminated in the socialist society." In pursuing this argument they begin with the assertion that for Marx the phenomenon of alienation results from commodity production for the market, since this means preoccupation with things rather than people, and rule by impersonal market forces rather than human rule. In this sense, they argue that Engels' reference to the transition from necessity to freedom in socialism means the change from an automatic market to central planning. Specifically, they present quotations from Marx and Paul Sweezy (who is not Marx) to prove that under socialism "commodity production is eliminated," with the result that the "law of value" is eliminated, to be replaced by central planning. Since central planning is control by human beings, it will mean the end of workers' alienation from the economy. Finally, they argue that the Bolsheviks deliberately introduced the system of "war communism," meaning complete central planning, as their first main economic step toward the end of alienation in the Soviet Union. It was necessary to restate this argument in detail because it is an excellent statement of an erroneous interpretation of Marx, a thoroughly developed presentation of one side of a complex debate. This brief comment aims only to clarify some of the issues and take note of the opposite arguments, not to indulge in the game of "proof" by quotation from the large volume of available statements by Marx. It is certainly true that during Stalin's reign it was accepted by most Marxists as dogma that "commodity production" is limited to capitalism, and that the "law of value" could only apply where there is commodity production, and therefore that socialism is governed only by the "law of planning." Unfortunately, these terms were all used somewhat ambiguously. "Commodity production" was supposed to take place only where exchange is by a purely competitive automatic market mechanism. The "law of value" then meant that commodities would all be sold at a value equal to the amount of labor embodied in them. No one, least of all Sweezy in the book cited, ever explained what the law of planning was. Does it simply mean that those goods will be produced that the planners (or Stalin) decide will be produced? Even Stalin, in his last pamphlet, called the Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, found it necessary to emphasize that planners are governed by certain objective limitations, and that some commodity production is to be found in socialism, at least in the sphere of the collective farm purchases and sales. After Stalin's death and his denunciation in 1956 a furious debate broke out in which most Soviet economists came to believe that the law of value does operate under socialism.' One view was that the "law of value" operates in all exchanges between economic units, even those that are not conducted in an automatic market. That view is still semantic or theological, but does reach the conclusion that value and therefore objective limits to planning must operate under socialism. The more