No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Metamorphosis in political Economy: A new combination of three disparate ideas
Abstract
Innovation in theory building usually follows the prescription of “normal science” as described by Thomas Kuhn in his account on the history of theoretical physics – see Kuhn (1962). What already had been postulated by Descartes (compare Descartes, 1637) as a signum of science, namely the systematic advance towards smaller, more specialized, partial problems that are easier to solve, this procedure still prevails in the social sciences till today. Contrary to this piecemeal engineering approach, Joseph Schumpeter made the character mask of the revolutionary entrepreneur to his hero of progress – at least as far as innovation in the production of commodities is concerned (Schumpeter, 1911). Of course, history shows that both forms of innovation are alternating: If the slow advance and broadening of a prevailing mainstream gets stuck and the contradictions it produces start to accumulate quickly, then it is time for a revolution – in the material world (compare Hanappi & Wäckerle, 2016) as well as in its scientific correlate. It is time for a metamorphosis. In which direction a theoretical innovation in times of metamorphosis shall point clearly has to remain an unanswered question. The best characterization of its general methodological form still seems to be Schumpeter’s dictum. It is a new combination of (existing) elements. The existing elements typically should concern burning problems of the troubled mainstream (compare Hanappi, 2016), and the adjective “new” means that they so far are not connected to each other in the stagnating mainstream approach. The global political economy as well as its theoretical reflection in mainstream theory undoubtedly currently is in a state that calls for a revolutionary metamorphosis. This paper therefore sets out to develop a new combination of three seemingly unconnected ideas, which each address a fundamental contradiction. The first idea concerns the contradiction between the rich and the poor parts of the global economy, the second idea concerns the driving force of progress of the human species and its impediments, and the third idea concerns the contradiction between syntax and semantics of the formal representation of the first two contradictions. Contrary to papers in “normal science,” which in a conclusion propose a solution for their research question, this paper avoids to pretend a finite horizon of its arguments. As is appropriate for a proposed theoretical innovation it just offers a new open-ended contribution to the rapidly evolving discourse in the middle of metamorphosis.
... As argued elsewhere-and contrary to Tony Blair's exclamation "we are all middle class now"any consistent theoretical concept of social value necessarily provides a sharp border between 17 See Ref. [15]. 18 Compare [16] for a definition of the capitalist algorithm. Figure 1. ...
... Compare[17].22 In[18] this class is described in more detail. It is named global class of organic intellectuals.23 ...
... However, in general, the import substitution program should be implemented regardless of political priorities and sanctions [28]. It is impossible to solve strategic problems by simple prohibitive measures [29], so the policy of import substitution should be based on a consistent system of measures, which requires an analysis of different types of economic policy that would take into account the requirements of economic security and the current situation in the Russian economy [30]. ...
An effective industrial policy in the context of globalization is becoming increasingly possible thanks to the use of a proactive strategy based on the principles of the New knowledge economy. It is not so much import substitution and support for extensive production that comes to the fore, but rather the strengthening of quality potential, primarily in the field of IT, innovation and education as the main sphere of human capital creation. Purpose of this article is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of Russian industrial policy and to show that only a proactive industrial policy can achieve the best results in a modern innovative economy. The authors use research methods such as an analysis of the theoretical aspects of an effective industrial policy of the future using soft power tools based on the concept of economic security, as well as an analysis of Russian experience in this area. This analysis is based on data from statistical indicators of industrial policy and assessment of import substitution coefficients. Based on this, the authors conclude that the success of the import substitution policy directly depends on whether it is an immanent part of economic policy or is carried out solely for political reasons.
This policy paper combines a large number of acute contemporary problems in political economy and shows that it is possible to bring them under one broad common umbrella: The choice between humanism or racism. To do so more fine grained definitions of humanism and racism are put forward. From that theoretical perspective the possible policy options for further European Integration are discussed. It is argued that Europe could be a role model for global evolution if it is possible to overcome racism and to use diversity as a creative force. As a driving agent for such a development the emerging class of organic intellectuals is identified.
The capitalist mode of production has fulfilled a most astonishing “historical mission” for the human species. It enabled an explosion of labor productivity gains and the discovery of new utility dimensions. But this progress came at the price of an accompanying explosion of contradictions, of unequal benefits and burdens across global and local classes of humans. This article sets out to explore what will happen if capitalism is finally ending, if its mission collapses. Following the tradition of Hegel and Marx, it can be assumed that a large part of the capitalist algorithm simply will have to vanish. But as history shows there also always is a remainder of a mode of production that in an inverted form becomes part of the next progressive mode of production. To identify what “Capital after Capitalism” could be, what has to be abolished and what might survive in which form is a central prerequisite for a proper understanding of the coming revolution of the current mode of production. Since each step on the ladder of global social evolution is also a step in social human consciousness, this step in understanding implies a direct impact in guiding the actions to accomplish this turnover.