DOCSLIB.ORG

Analytical Marxism" Marxism? Author(S): Michael A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analytical Marxism S&S Quarterly, Inc. Guilford Press Is "Analytical Marxism" Marxism? Author(s): Michael A. Lebowitz Reviewed work(s): Source: Science & Society, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), pp. 191-214 Published by: Guilford Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40402871 . Accessed: 20/02/2012 19:34 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science & Society. http://www.jstor.org Science & Society,Vol. 52, No. 2, Summer 1988,pp. 191-214 IS "ANALYTICAL MARXISM" MARXISM? MICHAEL A. LEBOWITZ A. COHN, JON ELSTER, JOHN ROEMER - with- out question,these are prolificwriters with an impres- sive seriesof articlesand books, who have become a significantpresence in commentariesand discussionsof Marxism in recentyears. My firstinkling, though, that more had emerged on thescene came froma 1983article by John Gray (passed on by a skepticalfriend); for, the articlehailed the emergenceof "a powerfulnew schoolof AnalyticalMarxism, by such outstanding figuresas G. A. Cohen,Jon Elster and JohnRoemer, with whose worksthe futureof Marxism,if it has any, musthenceforth be associated"(Gray, 1983, 1461). Is thereindeed such a school?The evidenceof theexistence of some such self-definedgroup is overwhelming.In his Making Sense Marx,Elster indicates that Cohen's Karl Marx's of ' ' Theory of Historycame as a 'revelation":'Overnight it changedthe standardsof rigourand claritythat were required to writeon Marx and Marxism."Accordingly, he notes,a small group of like-mindedcolleagues formed and begana seriesof annual meet- ings in 1979.Their discussionswere decisive for the shaping of Elster'sbook - and, in particular,the contributions of Roemer (subsequentlystated in his "path-breaking"A GeneralTheory of Exploitationand Class) were "crucial" (Elster,1985, xiv-xv).1 In turn,Roemer begins the latterbook (Roemer,1982) by notinghis particularindebtedness to Cohen and Elster,indicat- ing amongthose who werehelpful several others who also appear 1 Elsterespecially thanks Cohen and Roemer fortheir comments. He does not identifyother group membersbut, included among those thankedfor pre- publication help are Pranab Bardhan,Robert Brenner, Leif Johansen,Serge Kolm, Adam Przeworski,Ian Steedman,Robert van der Veen, Phillippe van Parijs and Erik Wright. 191 192 SCIENCE & SOCIETY on Elster's list.2 Mentioned on both lists, Erik Olin Wrightcor- roboratesthe existenceof the group, its annual meetingsand its ' orientation toward 'Analytical Marxism" in the preface to his recent book, Classes; as well, he testifiesthat its "new ideas and perspectiveshave had a considerableimpact on my thinkingand my work" (Wright,1985, 2).3 Finally, definitivelyembracing the self-designationof "Analytical Marxism" is Roemer's new collec- tion by thatname - a collection which includes threeessays each by Roemer, Elster and Cohen plus individual effortsby several others (Roemer, 1986).4 So, what do the adherentsthemselves see as the constituent elementsin AnalyticalMarxism? For Wright,the centralintellec- tual thread is the "systematicinterrogation and clarificationof basic [Marxian] concepts and their reconstructioninto a more coherent theoreticalstructure" (Wright, 1985, 2). Similarly, as noted, Elsteridentified "rigor and clarity"as the underlyingprin- ciple in the formation of the group. The most explicit self- descriptionof Analytical Marxism,however, comes fromRoemer in the Introductionto his collection: "Analyticallysophisticated Marxism" is pursued with "contemporarytools of logic, mathe- matics,and model building" and committedto "the necessityfor abstraction," to the "search for foundations" of Marxian judg- ments,and to "a non-dogmaticapproach to Marxism" (Roemer, 1986, 1-2). An impressiveset of elements,to be sure. Wheredo we apply for candidate status in this analyticallycorrect fellowship? More than rigor,however, sets Analytical Marxism apart - as John Gray's praise forthis "powerfulnew school" makes clear. For, hailing the early Austrian criticismsof Marx by Böhm- Bawerk,von Mises and Hayek (and thatof right-wingU.S. econo- mist Paul Craig Roberts)and genuflectingbefore "the prodigious virtuosityof capitalism" and the marvelsof the market,Gray was far from a sympatheticcommentator on Marxism ("the first world view in human historythat is genuinely self-defeating"); his praise for Analytical Marxism occurs in the context of a lengthy anti-Marxistpolemic ("The System of Ruins"). 2 These include Lief Johansen, Serge Kolm and Erik Wright. 3 Wrightidentifies among the membersof the group: Cohen, Roemer,Elster, van Parijs, van der Veen, Brenner,Przeworski and Hillel Steiner. 4 Included in this collection are essays by Bardhan, Brenner,Przeworski, Wright and Allen Wood. ANALYTICAL MARXISM 193 The practitionersof Analytical Marxism can not, of course, bear the responsibilityfor what others (like Gray) write about them.They bear responsibilityonly fortheir own work.But con- siderthat work. Included by Elsteras "dead" in Marx (in his most recentbook, An Introduction to Karl Marx) are the following: "scientific socialism"; "dialectical materialism"; Marxian eco- nomic theory- in particular,its two "main pillars," the labor theoryof value ("intellectuallybankrupt") and the theoryof the falling rate of profits;and, "perhaps the most importantpart of historicalmaterialism," the "theoryof productiveforces and rela- tions of production" (Elster, 1986, 188-94). Similarly,in a long marchthrough Marxian economics in his AnalyticalFoundations of Marxian Economic Theory (Roemer, 1981), Roemer leftintact only the Marxian theoryof exploitation; he then proceeded in Roemer (1982) to findeven thisfinal survivorinadequate. Exploi- tation, Roemer now informsus, is simply inequality. But what, then, is the differencebetween the Analytical Marxist position and that of non-Marxistphilosophers such as Rawls? Roemer answers that "it is not at all clear"; "the lines drawn between contemporaryanalytical Marxism and contemporaryleft-liberal political philosophy are fuzzy" (Roemer, 1986, 199-200). One must wonder what really is leftof Marxism in Analyti- cal Marxism. In what follows,we will examine some of thiswork (especially that of Elster and Roemer) in order to explore the extentto which it can be considered"Marxist." The conclusion is thatAnalytical Marxism is not Marxism - and that,indeed, it is in essence an¿/-Marxist. "Neoclassical" or "Rational Choice" Marxism? There are severalalternative labels which have been attached to Analytical Marxism and its practitioners;they include Neo- classical Marxism, Game-Theoretic Marxism and Rational- Choice Marxism. Consideration of these labels themselves providesa good point of entryinto an examination of Analytical Marxism. "Neoclassical Marxism," as Patrick Clawson describedPhil- lipe van Parijs' article on the falling-rate-of-profitcontroversy, would appear on its face to be an oxymoron(Clawson, 109). How could such a constructexist? After all, neoclassical economic the- 194 SCIENCE & SOCIETY ory begins from the atomistic individual conceived as ontologi- cally prior to the whole, the particular society. This is the "Cartesian" heritage, so well analyzed by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin, which it shares with methodological approaches in other spheres: The partsare ontologicallyprior to thewhole; that is, theparts exist in isolationand come togetherto makewholes. The partshave intrinsic properties,which theypossess in isolationand whichthey lend to the whole. (Levins and Lewontin,269.) In neoclassical analysis, we have atomisticindividuals who, with exogenously given assets and techniques, enter into relationsof exchange with each other in order to satisfyexogenously given wants; and society is the sum-total of these arrangementsof exchange. Nothing could be furtherfrom Marx's perspective.To begin with the isolated individual forwhom the various formsof social connectednessare a "mere means toward his private purposes" was simply "twaddle" (Marx, 1973, 84). "Private interest,"Marx emphasized, "is itself already a socially determined interest, which can be achieved only within the conditions laid down by societyand with the means providedby society."To be sure,it is the interestof individuals, of privatepersons; "but its content,as well as the formand means of its realization,is given by social conditions independent of all" (Marx, 1973, 156). Thus, in the dialectical (in contrastto the Cartesian)perspec- tive, parts have no prior independentexistence as parts. They "acquire propertiesby virtueof being partsof a particularwhole, properties they do not have in isolation or as parts of another whole" (Levins and Lewontin, 273, 3). Marx's startingpoint, accordingly,is to develop an understandingof societyas a "con- nected whole," as an organic system;it is to trace the intrinsic connections and to reveal the "obscure structureof the bourgeois economic system,"the "inner core, which is essential but con- cealed" on the surfaceof society(Marx, 1968,65; Marx, 1981,311). Only then does Marx proceed to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • June 2017 Draft “A Theory of Cooperation with an Application To
    June 2017 draft “A theory of cooperation with an application to market socialism” by John E. Roemer Yale University [email protected] 1 1. Man, the cooperative great ape It has become commonplace to observe that, among the five species of great ape, homo sapiens is by far the most cooperative. Fascinating experiments with infant humans and chimpanzees, by Michael Tomasello and others, give credence to the claim that a cooperative protocol is wired into to the human brain, and not to the chimpanzee brain. Tomasello’s work, summarized in two recent books with similar titles (2014, 2016), grounds the explanation of humans’ ability to cooperate with each other in their capacity to engage in joint intentionality, which is based upon a common knowledge of purpose and trust. There are fascinating evolutionary indications of early cooperative behavior among humans. I mention two: pointing and miming, and the sclera of the eye. Pointing and miming are pre-linguistic forms of communicating, probably having evolved due to their usefulness in cooperative pursuit of prey. If you and I were only competitors, I would have no interest in indicating the appearance of an animal that we, together, could catch and share. Similarly, the sclera (whites of the eyes) allow you to see what I am gazing it: if we cooperate in hunting, it is useful for me that you can see the animal I have spotted, for then we can trap it together and share it. Other great apes do not point and mime, nor do they possess sclera. Biologists have also argued that language would likely not have evolved in a non- cooperative species (Dunbar[2009] ).
    [Show full text]
  • Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse
    John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse Nov 2003 RWP03-044 The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. All works posted here are owned and copyrighted by the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism1 Mathias Risse John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University October 25, 2003 1. Left-libertarianism is not a new star on the sky of political philosophy, but it was through the recent publication of Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner’s anthologies that it became clearly visible as a contemporary movement with distinct historical roots. “Left- libertarian theories of justice,” says Vallentyne, “hold that agents are full self-owners and that natural resources are owned in some egalitarian manner. Unlike most versions of egalitarianism, left-libertarianism endorses full self-ownership, and thus places specific limits on what others may do to one’s person without one’s permission. Unlike right- libertarianism, it holds that natural resources may be privately appropriated only with the permission of, or with a significant payment to, the members of society. Like right- libertarianism, left-libertarianism holds that the basic rights of individuals are ownership rights. Left-libertarianism is promising because it coherently underwrites both some demands of material equality and some limits on the permissible means of promoting this equality” (Vallentyne and Steiner (2000a), p 1; emphasis added).
    [Show full text]
  • Quong-Left-Libertarianism.Pdf
    The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 19, Number 1, 2011, pp. 64–89 Symposium: Ownership and Self-ownership Left-Libertarianism: Rawlsian Not Luck Egalitarian Jonathan Quong Politics, University of Manchester HAT should a theory of justice look like? Any successful answer to this Wquestion must find a way of incorporating and reconciling two moral ideas. The first is a particular conception of individual freedom: because we are agents with plans and projects, we should be accorded a sphere of liberty to protect us from being used as mere means for others’ ends. The second moral idea is that of equality: we are moral equals and as such justice requires either that we receive equal shares of something—of whatever it is that should be used as the metric of distributive justice—or else requires that unequal distributions can be justified in a manner that is consistent with the moral equality of persons. These twin ideas—liberty and equality—are things which no sound conception of justice can properly ignore. Thus, like most political philosophers, I take it as given that the correct conception of justice will be some form of liberal egalitarianism. A deep and difficult challenge for all liberal egalitarians is to determine how the twin values of freedom and equality can be reconciled within a single theory of distributive justice. Of the many attempts to achieve this reconciliation, left-libertarianism is one of the most attractive and compelling. By combining the libertarian commitment to full (or nearly full) self-ownership with an egalitarian principle for the ownership of natural resources, left- libertarians offer an account of justice that appears firmly committed both to individual liberty, and to an egalitarian view of how opportunities or advantages must be distributed.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Ownership, Social Justice and World-Ownership Fabien Tarrit
    Self-Ownership, Social Justice and World-Ownership Fabien Tarrit To cite this version: Fabien Tarrit. Self-Ownership, Social Justice and World-Ownership. Buletinul Stiintific Academia de Studii Economice di Bucuresti, Editura A.S.E, 2008, 9 (1), pp.347-355. hal-02021060 HAL Id: hal-02021060 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02021060 Submitted on 15 Feb 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Self-Ownership, Social Justice and World-Ownership TARRIT Fabien Lecturer in Economics OMI-LAME Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne France Abstract: This article intends to demonstrate that the concept of self-ownership does not necessarily imply a justification of inequalities of condition and a vindication of capitalism, which is traditionally the case. We present the reasons of such an association, and then we specify that the concept of self-ownership as a tool in political philosophy can be used for condemning the capitalist exploitation. Keywords: Self-ownership, libertarianism, capitalism, exploitation JEL : A13, B49, B51 2 The issue of individual freedom as a stake went through the philosophical debate since the Greek antiquity. We deal with that issue through the concept of self-ownership.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing Mother Nature's Gifts: a Reply to Quong and Miller
    Sharing Mother Nature’s Gifts: A Reply to Quong and Miller Hillel Steiner University of Manchester Note to participants in the Territory and Justice conference, Dublin 2010: This paper is part of a symposium that will shortly be published in the Journal of Political Philosophy. It is Part II of this paper – my reply to David Miller – that is relevant to the concerns of our conference and that should be comprehensible even in the absence of David’s paper. Of course, I’d very much welcome any comments you might have on any part of the paper. Please send them to me at [email protected] . Thanks. Sharing Mother Nature’s Gifts: A Reply to Quong and Miller Hillel Steiner University of Manchester For nearly forty years now, philosophers working on conceptions of distributive justice have been arguing about whether – and if so, how – responsibility-sensitivity can be an integral feature of their accounts. Some, primarily right libertarians, have contended that it can be if, and only if, the sole foundational right ascribed to individuals is one of self-ownership.1 Others, primarily strict egalitarians, have tended to agree with them and have consequently rejected both responsibility-sensitivity and self-ownership on the grounds that the unequal distributions which those features underwrite are patently unjust. Luck egalitarian theories reject both of these positions, though their reasons for doing so vary somewhat from one such theory to another. Left libertarianism is a luck egalitarian theory or, more precisely, a family of luck egalitarian theories. Among their several reasons for rejecting right libertarianism is the fact that it fails the responsibility-sensitivity test.
    [Show full text]
  • The Falling Rate of Profit Thesis Reassessed: Owart D a Sociology of Marx’S Value Theory of Labor
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 8-2007 The Falling Rate of Profit Thesis Reassessed: owarT d a Sociology of Marx’s Value Theory of Labor John Hamilton Bradford University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Bradford, John Hamilton, "The Falling Rate of Profit Thesis Reassessed: owarT d a Sociology of Marx’s Value Theory of Labor. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2007. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/261 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by John Hamilton Bradford entitled "The Falling Rate of Profit Thesis Reassessed: owarT d a Sociology of Marx’s Value Theory of Labor." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Sociology. Harry F. Dahms, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Stephanie Ann Bohon, Robert Gorman Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by John Hamilton Bradford entitled “The Falling Rate of Profit Thesis Reassessed: Toward a Sociology of Marx’s Value Theory of Labor.” I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Sociology.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerald A. Cohen (1941-2009) an Intellectual Journey Through Radical Thought
    Gerald A. Cohen (1941-2009) An intellectual journey through radical thought Fabien Tarrit Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne France Abstract: The philosopher Gerald A. Cohen, who once was a Chichele Professor at Oxford University, between 1984 and 2008, died on the 5th of August last year. His thought, known as a radical one and explicitly intended as serving the liberation of humanity, suddenly appeared on the intellectual theatre in 1978 with the publication of Karl Marx‟s Theory of History: A Defence. This book can be seen as doubly original. On the one hand it defends historical materialism on the basis of methodological foundations (analytical philosophy, logical positivism, functional explanation) that are usually known as contradictory with Marx‟s method. On the other hand, it initiated a school of thought, Analytical Marxism, which debate also took on economics, sociology, history… Later, after a long-lasting debate, still in search of intellectual radicalism, he gradually departed from Marx‟s theory, both for theoretical reasons in terms of logical consistency, and for empirical reasons in terms of correspondence between theory and empirical facts. He then gradually turned on theoretical discussions in political philosophy that flourished around John Rawls‟ Theory of Justice. This was not an immediate shift, since beforehand he appropriated the libertarian concept of self-ownership in order to associate it to a Marxist approach. In doing so, he intended, on the basis of John Locke‟s theory, to use a libertarian argument as a tool for critical theory. Cohen then gave up this concept before entering the normative debate around issues on social justice.
    [Show full text]
  • If Not Left-Libertarianism, Then What?
    COSMOS + TAXIS If Not Left-Libertarianism, then What? A Fourth Way out of the Dilemma Facing Libertarianism LAURENT DOBUZINSKIS Department of Political Science Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Burnaby, B.C. Canada V5A 1S6 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.sfu.ca/politics/faculty/full-time/laurent_dobuzinskis.html Bio-Sketch: Laurent Dobuzinskis’ research is focused on the history of economic and political thought, with special emphasis on French political economy, the philosophy of the social sciences, and public policy analysis. Abstract: Can the theories and approaches that fall under the more or less overlapping labels “classical liberalism” or “libertarianism” be saved from themselves? By adhering too dogmatically to their principles, libertarians may have painted themselves into a corner. They have generally failed to generate broad political or even intellectual support. Some of the reasons for this isolation include their reluctance to recognize the multiplicity of ways order emerges in different contexts and, more 31 significantly, their unshakable faith in the virtues of free markets renders them somewhat blind to economic inequalities; their strict construction of property rights and profound distrust of state institutions leave them unable to recommend public policies that could alleviate such problems. The doctrine advanced by “left-libertarians” and market socialists address these substantive weaknesses in ways that are examined in detail in this paper. But I argue that these “third way” movements do not stand any better chance than libertari- + TAXIS COSMOS anism tout court to become a viable and powerful political force. The deeply paradoxical character of their ideas would make it very difficult for any party or leader to gain political traction by building an election platform on them.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Notice of GA Cohen's Self-Ownership, Freedom
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Missouri: MOspace “Critical Notice of G.A. Cohen’s Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality ”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 28 (1998): 609-626. Peter Vallentyne SELF-OWNERSHIP FOR EGALITARIANS G.A. Cohen’s book brings together and elaborates on articles that he has written on self- ownership, on Marx’s theory of exploitation, and on the future of socialism. Although seven of the eleven chapters have been previously published (1977-1992), this is not merely a collection of articles. There is a superb introduction that gives an overview of how the chapters fit together and of their historical relation to each other. Most chapters have a new introduction and often a postscript or addendum that connect them with other chapters. And the four new chapters (on justice and market transactions, exploitation in Marx, the concept of self-ownership, and the plausibility of the thesis of self-ownership) are important contributions that round out and bring closure to many of the central issues. As always with Cohen, the writing is crystal clear, and full of compelling examples, deep insights, and powerful arguments. Cohen has long been recognized as one of the most important exponents of analytic Marxism. His innovative, rigorous, and exciting interpretations of Marx’s theories of history and of exploitation have had a major impact on Marxist scholarship. Starting in the mid-1970s he has increasingly turned his attention to normative political philosophy. As Cohen describes it, he was awakened from his “dogmatic socialist slumbers” by Nozick’s famous Wilt Chamberlain example in which people starting from a position of equality (or other favored patterned distribution) freely choose to pay to watch Wilt Chamberlain play, and the net result is inequality (or other unfavored pattern).
    [Show full text]
  • Financialization, the Great Recession and the Rate of Profit
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Lund University Publications - Student Papers Master programme in Economic History Financialization, the Great Recession, and the rate of profit: profitability trends in the US corporate business sector, 1946-2011 Themistoklis Kalogerakos [email protected] Abstract: The tendential fall in the rate of profit lies in the center of a long-lasting debate among Marxist scholarship on its centrality and empirical relevance in the investigation of structural crises. Without neglecting the financial aspect of the current crisis, which is covered in the vast majority of academic accounts, we try to discover its underlying roots in the entire spectrum of capitalist production in the US, in reference with that debate. Our empirical evidence indicates that the US economy experiences an inability to recover profit rates to the high levels of the first postwar decades on a sustainable basis. It is proposed that this is due to the reluctance of policy makers to allow the vast destruction of unproductive capital, because such a process entails a potential systemic risk for the established socioeconomic and political status-quo. Key words: Falling rate of profit, US economy, structural crisis, Great Recession, Marx, financialization, profitability trends EKHR61 Master thesis (15 credits ECTS) August 2013 Supervisor: Anders Ögren Examiner: Kerstin Enflo Website www.ehl.lu.se Themistoklis Kalogerakos EKHR61 Economic History: First Year 870106-5495 Independent
    [Show full text]
  • MARXIST ECONOMICS: on FREEMAN's NEW APPROACH to CALCULATING the RATE of PROFIT Takuya Sato
    MARXIST ECONOMICS: ON FREEMAN'S NEW APPROACH TO CALCULATING THE RATE OF PROFIT Takuya Sato In a recent article, Freeman (2012) proposes a new approach to the calculation of the Marxian average rate of profit (ARP), namely that marketable financial securities, as well as fixed assets, should be included in the denominator of the ARP to ensure that the latter reflects the dramatic increase in the volume and variety of financial instruments in recent decades. By including such securities in the denominator, he also tries to demonstrate that ‘there is a consistent long-run fall in the UK and US rate of profit which, contrary to the figures widely used by Marxists, have both fallen almost monotonically since 1968’ (2012: 167). Taking account of the financialisation phenomenon as part of the recent history of global capitalism is certainly of critical importance for contemporary Marxist economics. Many studies indicate at least a partial recovery in profit rates in many advanced capitalist countries since the 1980s, particularly the U.S, despite lack-lustre growth rates (Harman 2010). To acknowledge such a recovery does not require abandoning Marx’s law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (LTRPF). All the same, the contradiction between improved profitability and relatively stagnant economic conditions demands a satisfactory explanation from the perspective of critical political economy. Many researchers have tried to explain it with reference to the phenomenon of financialisation, in different and sometimes mutually conflicting ways. Some regard financialisation as at least one of the keys to the recovery of the average profit rate (Albo, Gindin and Panitch 2010; Husson 2009; Moseley 2011); some emphasize that it has had a negative impact on investment in the ‘real’ economy (Duménil and Lévy 2011; Orhangazi 2008); and still others highlight that a lack of profitable opportunity for CALCULATING THE RATE OF PROFIT 43 productive investment has boosted investment in financial markets (Smith and Butovsky 2012; Kliman 2012; Foster and Magdoff 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Exploitation, Unequal Exchange and Dependency: a Philosophical Analysis
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1987 Exploitation, Unequal Exchange and Dependency: A Philosophical Analysis Paul Olabisi Otubusin Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Otubusin, Paul Olabisi, "Exploitation, Unequal Exchange and Dependency: A Philosophical Analysis" (1987). Dissertations. 2486. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/2486 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1987 Paul Olabisi Otubusin EXPLOITATION, UNEQUAL EXCHANGE AND DEPENDENCY: A PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS by Paul Olabisi Otubusin A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Loyola University of Chicago in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 1987 Copyright 1987 by Paul o. Otubusin ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work has finally taken shape and seen the light of the day through the efforts of various people, many of whom I cannot acknowledge here due to lack of space. The author owes a great gratitude to all those who have contributed directly or indirectly towards the realization of this work and his educational goal. I am specially grateful to my dissertation director, Dr. David Schweickart who nurtured the preliminary idea in my mind and like the Socratic midwife, through his direction, comments and helpful suggestions, saw to the delivery of the idea in its present final stage.
    [Show full text]