Capitalism - Science topic

Dear Dr. Taher;

The future of artificial intelligence is still being researched, but it already involves architecture and those who practice it. Our goal is to investigate how the development of artificial intelligence will impact the field of architecture and the future employment of architects. It sparks a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of how Intelligence can advance the field of architecture. Architects' and designers' roles will actually change as a result of AI. Artificial intelligence will have the power to develop speedy mass creation in the future, and designers will simply need to set the restrictions and filter the AI scheme according to aesthetics, client, or market requirement. Artificial intelligence has the capacity to quickly produce a broad spectrum of designs in addition to fully taking into account the quantitative processing of many subjective and objective variables.

En las zonas rurales de sur de Tucumán, el oeste de Ccatamarca y el sur de la Rioja, se desenvolvió un modo de producción denominado "comunitarismo rural" que se basó en el uso compartido de tierras, aguadas y bosques por parte delideres rurales que acuerdan un eticidad común en el manejo de manadas y "bañados"....

To both Andrew and Primus,..... maybe if we talk about intrinsic and instrumental desires/needs it might help to clarify points made by you both and I think would serve your respective positions very well.

Hello Richard Flamio Jr.

It sounds funny but I usually do the second type of the examples you used (Hifiasm, Augustus) even though that is not the way they were originally described. In addition, I would use the name of the company and origin in parentheses after the name of the software (rather than names of the people). That seems to be the convention in most journals.

I would like to remind you that as much as what is written, the results on the field are at least as important as what is written. Applications produce results that are at least as important as what is written. After all, if there is an expectation of the perfection of the field on the subject, the results in the field are open to discussion.

"marxism targets only flawed forms of capitalism" This statement makes no sense to me at all. Marxism provides a critique of capitalism in ALL its forms; there are no "unflawed" forms of capitalism in Marx's analysis. Furthermore, I don't read those talking about taking Nature more into account than Marx did - what I assume you mean by "green Marxism" - as juxtaposing that (as you are doing) to some preoccupation with " saving society". Even in Marx's own analysis society and nature are analyzed as interwoven and part of his critique of capitalism was a critique of how capitalism ruptures the natural metabolism of human/nature inter-relations. So your "yellow Marxism", defined as "saving society and nature at the same time from capitalism" has been there from the get-go, in both Marx and Engels' writings. The neglect/exploitation of Nature by what you are calling "red" Marxists, which I take to mean Soviet-style Marxists, flowed from their abandonment of Marxism as anything other than a convenient ideology serving to hide their pursuit of the same goals as Western capitalism, i.e., maximum exploitation of workers AND nature via increased management by the state, which resulted in a new form of "state capitalism". Lenin, after all, was frank about following the German model of state capitalism, with the Soviet Union differing only in the ASSERTION (but not the reality) that the state would be controlled by workers instead of capitalists. Result: the same kind of exploitation of both humans and nature as the rest of capitalism.

Where is the evidence that supply side economics does not work with respect to inequality? In the private sector, supply side economics has been shown to work every time it is invoked. When Government becomes involved, there is economic distortion with respect to the types of programs instituted, which undermines inequality outcomes. Economies need innovators to "prime the pump" of real wealth spreading, where jobs are created, which decreases somewhat, so-called class inequality. Inequality, in the socialist sense, presumes the rich not reinvesting profits to grow business further. When there is "crony" capitalism, collusion between politicians and corporations occurs, which undermines innovation and initiative. We've seen this in the USA, where small businesses were crushed by government policies during the pandemic, but large companies were largely untouched. Undermining legitimate competition is a tool of crony capitalism, and is presently part of the so-called globalist "Great Reset".

I think it is more about taste than anything else, if I had the choice, I would to capitalize headings as it is more attractive to highlight the content on the one hand, and on the other hand the differentiation in writing the letters gives the impression that there is something important to read.

But at the end of the day, we remain subject to the journal's guidelines when publishing either we prefer capitalization or not.

You are an original thinker and researcher; I have taken your works on sustainability into account. Astronomy replaced astrology, chemistry replaced alchemy; the same process is currently in the making, with respect to social science: what is now understood as economics (mainly a mathematized derivate of private wealth accumulation and subsequent management practices) will be replaced by a more scientific model of human economic action, cleaned up from ideological wishlists. I do regard the profound study of other authors as a precondition of learning, dear Lucio Muñoz Most of my articles and books, i.e. my own work and views, are on my RG account (e.g.

).

Dear Lucio,

Interesting question. To answer your question: Does green market paradigm shift avoidance opens the door for green socialism ideas to flourish? - I say so.

Kind regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear Lucio,

Yes, but unfortunately only in theory at the moment. In order for the socio-economic system built on the model of full green, pro-environmental, pro-climate socialism based on a sustainable, green circular economy to be successful in comparison with (as you call it) dwarf green capitalism, it is necessary to significantly increase the pro-environmental awareness of citizens and significantly increase the scale of creation and implementation of new eco-innovations and green technologies on an industrial scale, thanks to which it will be possible to significantly accelerate the efficient implementation of the process of pro-environmental transformation of the classic growth, brown, linear excess economy into a sustainable, green, zero-emission zero-growth economy and a circular economy, and to build a system of economically profitable, pro-environmental and pro-climate economic ventures.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

You may want to check the following paper out:

Financial market development and bank capitalization ratio: evidence from developing countries

OF Etudaiye-Muhtar, R Ahmad, TA Olaniyi… - …, 2017 - journals.sagepub.com

Dear Lucio,

I too believe that what you have described as the nature of human population dynamics is dependent on the nature of the dynamics of the traditional market structure that serves them. Well, in the short term (months and quarters) it is citizens who adjust their functioning to seasonal changes in the level of production, income, purchases made etc. In the medium term (several to sometimes a dozen years), changes in the rate of economic growth that take place as part of business cycles translate into changes in citizens' income and consumption levels, and this then influences citizens' decisions to start a family and have children. On the other hand, in the longer term (from several years to several decades), the long-term economic processes, the changing sectoral and industry structure of the economy, the significantly changing level of economic development, production, income, etc., translate into significant changes in the living standards of citizens and the prevailing purchasing, housing and living standards. Subsequently, these significant changes in the economic processes taking place, in economic development, including the public products and services offered by the state (education, health care, public utilities, social assistance) and consequently also in the living standards of citizens largely determine the fertility rate, housing standards, the product and service structure of purchases made, the length of the average life expectancy of citizens, possibly also the process of population ageing and other changes in the social structure. Consequently, there are correlations between economic development and structural changes realised in the medium and long term in markets and economic sectors and changes in citizens' living standards, changes in consumption standards, living conditions, economic decisions made, fertility levels, citizens' life expectancy, social processes, etc.

Regards,

Dariusz

Lucio Muñoz : Thanks for your kind response to my comment. I must tell you that I am a decades-long, severe and antagonistic critic of modern official theoretical physics and cosmology; both in and out of RG. One of my forums in RG on Einstein’s theories of relativity was closed down by an exceptional ruling of the RG management after it ran for a year and a half and attracted many physicists from around the world. I can see that someone totally unknown to me, made a collage of my comments in that forum and posted it online at the following link:

But I understand that your question in this forum is not directed to persons like me (which is rather an exception), but of course, is very relevant in the face of the present crisis of credibility of modern scientific theories and the existing paradigm. I definitely welcome your efforts in this forum.

I must also say that I do not doubt the intellectual honesty of Kuhn; but in my opinion it was a naïve exercise; because it did not consider the harsh realities of society of conflicting interest groups as I discussed in my comment above. But Karl Popper in my opinion, was definitely an opportunist and trickster – a turncoat “Marxists”, used and promoted by British imperial authority on the one hand to bestow “scientific” benediction on the esoteric theories of relativity by Albert Einstein, making those Kosher (because such theories cannot be falsified and by default are established as objective truth!). On the other hand, used as a “determinist” in the polemic on quantum uncertainty and in the ideological conflict and geopolitical rivalry of the time.

Best regards.

I think the crisis of overproduction is being met by increasing the rapidity of transactions (multiplying the transactions) by a small percentage of the global market under the impact of internet connections and increased commodification of delivery and home services, basically, rather than expansion of the number of buyers in the market. If you consider the African continent (home to about 25% of the world's population) and much of Latin America, and India, most of the world's people are not in the capitalist labor force. Most are in the so-called informal sector - organized by domination/oppression, not wage labor.

I would agree with Marx, the cost of labor is determined by the cost of reproduction of the worker - by cost of subsistence - so not a direct relationship between value realization and wages. Lots of value does not mean wages will go up unless a certain type of worker must be reproduced and temporarily if a shortage exists. Today, only a relatively small number of fully developed capacity workers are needed, and their lifestyle costs a lot, so their cost of reproduction wage is way above subsistence. However, a large portion of the existing workforce is struggling to maintain subsistence level, so much so that a guaranteed income in the U.S. capitalist core, is conceived to prevent political crisis as wages generalize across the global system stagnant in the face of inflating prices.

With respect to "How labor and overproduction is related to the value crisis?", since the secular trend to replacement of workers by technology creates the change in the "organic composition of capital," whereby more materials are passed through (higher capitalization) with less added labor (variable capital), huge amounts of good with tiny amounts of value added must be sold to realize the same amount or comparable amount of surplus value as when more labor was utilized. Conditions of surplus labor and labor paid at the global average endanger realization of value as they cannot pay even low market prices.

It seems to me that as the amount of surplus labor in the form of the informal sector grows globally, the key for America and Europe is to keep the starving masses away from them (don't report on them in the media) and to take over feeding their own surplus populations, using taxes to provide income which they can then spend. But sometimes the middle-class high paid workers revolt against paying taxes to feed the poor. Militarism helps because the middle-class understands that armed domination is necessary and are willing to feed the people as armed forces.

In other words, since the workforce is global, only a few leading functions require core sector workers, and the rest of the workforce wages across the system, are declining in relative terms. Perhaps the system will reach crisis change when the surplus level reaches enough people with some skill who will refuse the labor for wages and demand their right to capital (to "own" it, i.e., control it according to their needs not profitability) in the form of land, natural resources, market places like Amazon, as well as productive capacity, and share it for self-reproduction, in an arrangement absent the pressure of market competition or forced centralization of capital.

With respect to the most possible (historical) change of the classical production function,

Stanley Wilkin mentioned that information-based new tech-know-logies are essential for future wealth creation

(land, labor, capital, information).

One, but not representative, example may be the digital nomads, who are growing by individual autonomy and expansion of identity.

John Hodge Friedman is definitely more than worth to mention as well as Hayek:

"More than ever it seems to me to be true that the complete apprehension of the doctrine that 'demand of commodities is not demand for labor' is 'the best test of an economist'." Appendix III Pure Theory of Capital

Am in full agreement with Remi Chukwudi Okeke

that the role of political leadership is paramount as per harnessing developmental gains (distribution policy, in terms of applied ethics).

Dear Lucio

What I tried to say is that, in my view it is characteristic to the sustainability-related discussion in economics to disregard the factor time when talking about pricing and equillibrium.

Regards

Michael

Steven, nobody is accusing anybody here. When you say that an entity has more power than another in the market and that is why there is no equality and freedom, by definition you are not talking about Adam Smith's perfect market...

If you look carefully at the pareto efficient and optimal point/conditions of the perfect traditional market, you can not be there without freedom and equality, but if you assume equality away you can be there only with freedom.

Let's leave it here. I am here to exchange ideas, not to impose ideas.

Respectfully yours;

The analysis of the inferior efficiency of wholly socialist centrally planned economies vis-à-vis social market economies is a multifaceted and complex problem. Answering the above question, I conclude that the aforementioned lower efficiency occurred in completely socialist centrally planned economies, because central planning with economic entities that function as state and not private and operate in the absence of real market structures and competition is not motivated to improve economic and financial efficiency., is not effectively activated to innovative solutions, in which the consumption of inputs should be optimized and limited while increasing the efficiency and achieved economic effects, satisfying the needs of citizens, gaining a significant position in competitive markets (because these attributes typical of market structures in the systems of socialist economies centrally planned for reasons, ideological assumptions do not exist).

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

What an incredible and fruitful this discussion turn out to be. Much thanks and regards towards Stefan Lindstrom , Rubén Corvalán , Adam Sulich , Sachin Suknunan . And thank you Firuz Alimov for your different insights. I've not thought that way. Your POV was different which i appreciate. Also, thank you Stefan Lindstrom for TEDX video recommendation, i enjoyed it.

Thanks; I agree with you, we need to leave here.

Have a nice evening.

Mohamed

Dear Lucio,

Dear Dariusz,

If You do not analyze in this respect the communist China politically and its capitalism economically nowadays, and Yugoslavian system before 1990-s, which can be characterized as "self-governance socialism" politically and "market socialism" economically, You will lack the main points in Your raised problem. Additionally You need to analyze carefully "the Swedish model" of the seventies in 20-th century with its "functional democratic socialism" politically, Meidner "wage-earners funds" economically and elements which implemented economic efficiency and social justice at the same time (as Saltsjobaden agreement of social dialogue from 1938), etc. Other countries are much less important to analyze in this respect.

The People's Republic of China is the only country that has been able to build capitalism under the banner of communism.

Left-wing economists are convinced that such a model gives the maximum advantage precisely because of centralization. But if you talk to the Chinese themselves, they will say that they did what they do in the entire developed world: they decentralized the economic sphere of life to such an extent until it led to success. The Chinese were carrying out structural reforms. But they did it carefully and wrote about it only after each measure carried out proved its success. Why are China's reforms successful? This is a matter of decentralization. Today, the economy in China is much more decentralized than, for example, in the entire post-Soviet space or in South America.

Dear Lucio, you are welcome

Outwardly, these two systems may be similar, but they have a different structure of existence. Capitalism must breathe freely. And this is possible only in a democratic society. But democratic capitalism is also not perfect. In any case, internally these two systems are very different, and for example Bolivian capitalism does not look like Chinese capitalism.

Characteristic postmodern society information capitalist economy that is, the so-called speculative economy which is imbued with neoliberal ideology whereby most states democratic arranged except the USA where liberal is present politically arranging. A society in which we live it is also post-industrial in which agriculture and industry are losing the role they once had. In fact, not correct to say that these two sectors go out, but the service sector has already gained importance in which it opens a vast number of jobs, while in the previous two we have a considerable reduction of the same. Economic globalization enabled the transfer of production units from developed countries to underdeveloped countries where employees do the same job as their colleagues for 8 to 10 times fewer wages. Globalization processes have affected all world societies, not only society Western Europe and the US but also the rest of the world.

Dear Lucio,

Yes, in its pure form, 100%. in terms of both models, neither of them ever existed and never really exists. There was and there is no real economy that would be 100 percent. socialist (according to the theory of Karol Marx) and there is no real economy that would be 100 percent market economy (according to Adam Smith's theory). while the currently existing economies mostly represent different formulas of the model of the social market economy as a mixed economy, i.e. containing specific private and public sectors related to each other in various configurations, market issues with central planning, market structures and public institutions, commercial economic entities and shaped and the socio-economic policy implemented by the government, including social policy, the market financial system present in modern economies (mainly the sector of commercial banks and investment funds) and the public financial system (public institutions, financial transfers, state budget and budgets of local government units), and private products offered on competitive markets and purchased by individual citizens, and public goods offered by the state to society and financed from the sources of the state finance system. In individual countries, the division of the economy into commercial and public sectors occurs similarly in the social market economy model, while in particular, there may be many differences.

Greetings, Have a nice day, Stay healthy!

Dariusz Prokopowicz

try to read economic theory and build from there

It helps your research reading Bruce R. Scott, The Concept of Capitalism (Heidelberg-London-New York: Springer, 2009) that explains capitalism as a "system of governance" rebuilding the concept from the classic Fernand Braudel "Civilization and Capitalism" (the original French has a very different title). More recently Scott published "Capitalism. Its Origins and Evolution as a System

of Governance" (Heidelberg-London-New York: Springer, 2011). These are the arguments and problematic stressed by Scott after, he told us, a visit to China:

" After the trip and the readings, one book stood out for its influence on my thinking: Fernand Braudel’s three-volume History of Civilization and Capitalism, 15th Century to the 18th Century. In the third volume, Braudel noted something that was completely new to me, to wit that average incomes circa 1500 were relatively equal across the most settled areas of the world at the time, which I took to mean Japan, China, India, present-day Turkey and Iraq, and Europe. The spread between the high- and low-income areas was estimated to be about two-to-one. Yet by the time I was doing my reading in Braudel, that spread had broadened to approximately thirty-to-one because of growth in the high incomes. This increased spread in relative incomes and therefore economic performance raised some immediate questions; for instance, what was it that had led to the rise of Europe, in relative terms, from circa 1500 onward? In hindsight it seems supremely ironic that Braudel was never able to ask if what he was searching for might have been hidden right in front of him, in the title of his book, i.e., in the European creation and adoption of an early concept of capitalism as a system of governance for many, but by no means all of their respective economies. Braudel was never able to define capitalism, as he readily admitted in his second volume, and, perhaps as a consequence, he never considered the possibility that the key to the relative rise of European incomes might have lain in the creation of that capitalist model of governance. Indeed, Braudel did not go looking for a model of governance; instead, he seems to have been looking for some natural force or forces that would explain the relative progress of Europe" (etc., p. XIII).

RE: "Most of the questions have no answer either because the links of researchgate did not lead them to the forums of relevance or they were just ignored "

Did you try using the "share" feature (bottom right corner) of your questions to direct them to colleagues in your network?

It's really a truthful story in the research work now days which you have highlighted in a great way. I agree with your question. My advice is just to you professor that work hard and continue your efforts inshallah in future Allah will help you......

My best wishes for your upcoming work.....

Exactly. However, more planning is needed from now own. Thank you so much for your enlightening and innovative thoughts

Official plans address reduction of gender inequality and establishing research priorities in academia. The former is difficult to achieve due to conservative cultures. Establishing research priorities produces certain mainstreams.

The general line is bringing academia, state and business into dialog and strengthening their collaboration.

"Every place on our planet affords its own unique experience ", Baatarzorig Batjargal

https://onartandaesthetics.com/2019/12/21/every-place-on-our-planet-affords-its-own-unique-cognitive-experience-baatarzorig-batjargal/

Examples where EX-ACT has been used as ex-post evaluation include e.g Niger (Projet d'Action Communautaire pour la Résilience Climatique), Morocco (Plan Maroc Vert), Madagascar (all IFAD projects), India (Sodic Soil III project), Brazil (Santa Catarina Rural Competitiveness Project, Rio de Janeiro Sustainable Rural Development Project) and Nepal (IFAD, Leasehold Forestry livestock project).

Stephen, good day....Both Brexconomics and Trumpconomics are extreme forms of economic thinking inconsistent with normal economic thinking as they are based on choas....they are the type thinking, and the only type of thinking that can support the agenda of an extreme democratic outcome under an extreme liberal democracy model as it is the case with BREXIT and USEXIT.

Thank you for your comment

The most frightening thing for new employees is when they are entering their jobs poditiond and not get properly trained or undertained according to their skills and diplomas, using two categories of employees with the same skills, the ones highly trained and the others undertrained and compkementary work force.This happrns to us in Greece at public sector especially.

Also in combination with the undermining of the public education vs private colleges, where the last having open access with the big companies and multi organisations, leads to two unequal categories of active employees

Dear Paul. my apologies if I sound too rough, I am here just to share ideas, not to impose ideas.

Just as red socialist countries missed the opportuniy to transition from economy unfriendly red socialism to economy friendly red socialism to close the social sustainability gap step by step as Karl Marx wanted pure capitalist countries have not find the way to shift properly either to socially friendly capitalism or green capitalism.....in both cases the shift came and they did not see it coming just as Thomas Kuhn said it happens....those inside the box do not see it, those outside the box will see it,,,in borh cases we are now trying to fix what they left us....

But China under this red market knowledge gap made some key moves way before the 1991 fall of red socialism that allow it to maintain political control of a dwarf red socialism model left as they slowly allowed capitalism in....

You may find the following article interesting as you are familiar with things on the ground in China....

Nationalization as Privatization in Reverse: Understanding the Nature of the Commons to Identify a Possible Point of Optimal Nationalization.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244564_Nationalization_as_Privatization_in_Reverse_Understanding_the_Nature_of_the_Commons_to_Identify_a_Possible_Point_of_Optimal_Nationalization

Feel free to comment any time

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Sharing food for thoughts:

An Overview of the 1848 Karl Marx's Capitalism Fix Dilemmas: How a Step by Step Road Towards Economy Friendly Red Socialism May Have Looked Had Marx Stated it?

Rej Kasi feel free to check my bachlor thesis on RG. I made a relatively comprehensive analysis of the economic conceptions rooted in the process of codifying European treaties. Even if the work is in French and applies mainly to Western and Southern Europe, the fundamentals are present. For information purposes, the work corresponds quite amply to the traditional requirements of a Bachelor thesis so it can serve as a structuring framework. To go even further in different forms of capitalism and work in European political economy, I recommend the work of Bruno Amable (2017) and Stafano Palombarini.

Good day Usama, thank you for taking the time to comment.

Markets shift from perfect market to perfect market when corrected so the 2012 Rio plus 20 marked a shift from perfect traditional market thinking to perfect green market thinking to move towards green economies and green growth after correcting it to reflect the environmental costs of doing business....These are free markets so no government intervention is needed if they are set up well and therefore they are working out well. So the UNCSD at rio plus 20 was not calling for goverment intervention, it was calling for governments to shift their structures from traditional economies to green economies, both free market economies.

If there is permanent government intervention, there are no free markets....so permanent government intervention to achieve environmental goals means NO FREE GREEN MARKETS, but what I call "dwarf green markets".

If government intervention is necessary, especially permanently means the markets are not properly set up....

I appreciate your comment

An interesting question. Considering current research problems important for science, I think that the question concerns particularly important issues. I believe that research on this topic should be continued. There was an interesting discussion. Greetings

''Treason is a matter of dates.''

--Napoleon Bonaparte

Regards

Such a good question! Martin Hebert points to an issue that was identified (under the term decolonization) in Tuck & Yang's (2012) article, "Decolonization is not a Metaphor." As those authors write, "Decolonization brings about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life; it is not a metaphor for other things we want to do to improve our societies and schools." Yet, as Martin pointed out, the lumping together of separate but related concepts provides authors with a convenient way to talk about a vast array of social issues with some coherence. At the same time, though, that lumping leaves authors open to criticisms about ignoring the concerns posed by capitalism, imperialism, and so forth. And as a conceptual "shorthand," it may serve as an erasure of some of the exact problems that use of a colonial or decolonizing analytic lens may strive to illuminate.

Don't be rude to begin with. I do not have to answer your question. Temper your remarks and act like a scholar not some unpleasant juvernile

I took this from Marx Archive. If you actually had any sense you would be able to read it and understand it, not make silly unbecoming and offensive remarks. I am not a student. Watch what you say and how you say it. I suggest you get involved with other questions not this one.

If you listen to the music of Nordic Giants, they hold the view that we already live in a dystopia. Indeed, they hold that humankind has lived in a dystopia for thousands of years (it is the typical human condtion), but that society has become more dystopic: with more powerful wars (given the weaponry we have had for the last 100 years), greater environmental damage, and increasing divisions (racism, sexism etc) in society. Their track 'Dystopia' sums it all up.

On the other hand, I would want to argue that Rosa Luxemburg, Robert Kurz and others are correct in arguing that capitalist barbarism, with the breakdown of capitalism, has not matured yet, but we are getting close to its realisation, especially when allied to environmental catastrophe (Kurz).

My own view is that communism exists within capitalist society: it sustains and supports capitalism, and is a suppressed form of life in capitalist society. But it is our hope: this hope is real, as opposed to pinning our hope on something turning up in the future (e.g. the invention of some new technology, or our politicians coming to their senses, the 2nd coming of Christ, or whatever).

Dear Kashif,

This is certainly an interesting question.

Marxism can provide a solid theoretical critique of today's 'development studies'. At its core, 'development studies' was created as a post-colonial interdisciplinary field of studies--one which aimed aimed to examine and address the developmental gap between Global North and Global South.

For the most part, development studies is bifurcated. On the one hand, there are those who advocate for state-led development. On the other, we have the stern believers in market-led development. The Marxian contribution here is that it brings to the fore the fact that, despite their core ideological discrepancies, both economic models are grounded on surplus value as a means for capital accumulation. That is, despite their methodological and theoretical differences, state-led and market-led development is exploitative at its core. Workers under both economic models are subordinated to the needs and desired of the capitalist/bourgeois class.

In this sense, I think Marxism is particularly useful not only in helping us understand the ways in which global capitalism perpetuates uneven development in the Global North and South but, most importantly, draw attention to the inherent flaws of capitalism, helping us, as scholars, to move forward in re-thinking new global political scenarios.

In terms of literature, I would recommend the following:

1. Murat Arsel & Anirban Dasgupta, "Critique, Rediscovery and Revival in Development Studies" Development and Change. 2015. Vol 46(4).

2. Benjamin Selwyn, "Karl Marx, Class Struggle and the Labour-Centred Development" Global Labour Journal. 2014. Vol 4(1)

I hope you find it useful.

Regards,

Dear Lucio, I just finished to read the paper you linked, but my doubts remains.

You defined the difference between normal and extreme democratic outcomes, in your model, basically as a matter of voter turnout, so as that normal democratic outcomes are those in which all the eligible voters go to vote. However, on the one side this has not empirical evidence in the real world, since there is no democratic system in which all voters participate to the electoral race. On the other side, you use the election of Trump as an example of extreme democratic outcome, but the voter turnout of trump election it has been in line with the average voter turnout of the past US presidential elections, and indeed it has also been greater than other US presidential elections.

What I don't understand, and what I disagree with, is the very concept of extreme democratic outcomes. I don't believe democratic outcomes could be normal or extreme. In my opinion, there could be democratic outcomes or non-democratic outcomes, but we cannot decide which democratic outcomes are normal or not. Until elections and referendums are carried out following the democratic norms and procedures, every outcome is a normal democratic outcome. Of course it could happen that we don't like a certain outcome (for instance I really don't liked Brexit) or that we didn't expect it, but we cannot define it as an extreme outcome only because we don't like it, or only because a part of the scientific community and political experts didn't expect that result.

Marco.

Look at literature under "creative capitalism", "the creative class", "urban futures" etc. Boltanski may not be menitoned, but his thesis can be fruitfully applied there. You should also include the Situationists' notion of "recuperation" to get a better grasp of what's going on. My 2 cents.

Your question offers a false choice.

What does the survival mean? The form of the ownership survives or the co-operatives individually work for a long time?

I think co-operatives' issues are from several sources, and capitalization can be one of them. Without seeing the system I would not identify the mains problem. I suggest to explore the issues and make a comparison(s) between agricultural industry players and co-operatives. In this process, survey the perceived issues and advantages of co-operatives.

Based on these information it would be easier to rank the problems. I am sure the lack of capital is one of them. Uncertainty in yearly incomes and large value of assets compared to the revenue are also issues.

Why is the survival of co-operatives important or good or interesting? Maybe we should start with that.

Aalbers, M. (2009) made a comparison of the global effect on an example of US, where the crisis was affecting mostly and on a highest scale the low-income communities while the high-income communities had a possibility to recover from the setback. It is also symbolic for what happened on a global scale. The author in his work also argues the power balance shift which due to rising oil prices has moved towards Asia and predicts (which is already happening and had happened) the increasing importance of some financial centers in Asia, because investing is slowly starting to go both ways and not only from US and Europe elsewhere.

Furthermore, the dynamic movement of capital created a smooth path for the crisis development. All industrialized countries were seeking for new markets, especially for cheap production inputs and the FDI enlarged exponentially on the global level in the last two and a half decades. Moreover, many economic analysts argue that global increase in debts was an additional factor for creating the crisis. All countries in development process were facing huge budget deficits and they also were trying to grow their economy and infrastructure.

Because:

1. Math lover

2. High and new technology adoption

3. Good job market

4. Socially most prestigious professionals

Economic transformation is accomplished by human thought and will. Capitalism is a human made system, based on the physical and evolutionary laws of nature. Capitalism can not die a natural death, as Marx opined, because it is a human-made social system. Consequently, all great historical transformations are the cultural product of preference changes in human values; digitization will add exponential speed to these social processes.

In our labs at MIT, we are currently working on the bottleneck mentioned in the previous answer - to build a scalable and reliable qubit architecture for quantum information processing. However, regarding the creation of a startup with focus on software to run on a quantum information processor, the field as a whole is currently not quite there yet.

So far, we are focusing on smaller algorithms and development of protocols that allow us to characterize our gate errors in order to push down the error rates at the same time as we look into how to increase the number of qubits on our chips without degrading their quantum coherence. Another pressing issue is to isolate the qubits from each other.

Once these engineering obstacles are solved, we can start to think about larger algorithms. For now, the algorithms we run are fairly small and limited to tailored connectivity between certain qubits. In other words, you need to know quite a lot about the specific hardware that you want to run your quantum algorithm on.

HI,

You may be interested by this one also:

Bank capital in the crisis: It's not just how much you have but who provides

Journal of Banking and Finance, February 2017, vol 75,  Pages 152-166

Alexandre Garel, Arthur Petit-Romec

Best regards

How about commercial and industrial?

Dear Yuri, thank you for commenting....

You should keep in mind, I am not a traditional economist/neoclassical or otherwise; and I am not in the Marxist's camp, I am an outside the box thinker looking from the outside at both paradigm shifts, the  1991 paradigm shift from red socialism to socially friendly capitalism/red markets/the end  of the world of Karl Marx; and the 2012 paradigm shift from the traditional market model to green markets/the end of the world for perfect market thinking...

I can see things that those inside the box can not see as when there is a paradigm shift the knowledge base of the previous paradigm is left behind and no longer works in the new paradigm....

China was lucky in my view, the started allowing some capitalism, and even tried to advice the soviets in doing the same, and then when the soviet bloc fell they allowed more....because they allowed capitalism in a control manner and they allowed from starting at the bottom/local/assets  they retain political power centrally.... and because the soviet bloc refuse to allowing capitalism in even in a controlled manner there was not choice after the 1991 soviet breakup other than allow capitalism to come in at force/little control....China keep political stability and the other former red socialist countries went into an initial period of economic chaos...

Point is:

All former socialist countries including China shifted from red socialism to socially friendly capitalism or economy friendly red socialism....in the new market...Marxist ideas do not work and traditional economic ideas, micro and macro, do not work either...therefore there is a red market or economy friendly red socialism knowledge gap right now....The same in all old capitalist countries the shift to green markets has created a green market knowledge gap as traditional economic theory do not work here, in green market you need perfect green market theory and green pricing....

Yuri you may find these articles interesting as food for thoughts:

a) China appears to have been doing the right moves to keep power since before the  1991 fall of soviet bloc....they have follow the principle of inverse action without knowing..."when you go from full nationalization to privatization you need to start allowing capitalism slow, from local assets/assets of no national relevance  up to national assets/assets of national relevance"...until achieving a point of optimal nationalization...

Nationalization as Privatization in Reverse: Understanding the Nature of the Commons to Identify a Possible Point of Optimal Nationalization

Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Pointing Out and Comparing the Sustainability Gaps Behind these Two Great Simplification Failures

Adam Smith Vrs Karl Marx: Stating the Structure and Implications of the Paradigm Clash that Led to the Death of Karl Marx’s World, to the Fall of the Soviet Bloc, and to the Rise of Socially Friendly Capitalism.

Karl Marx Vrs Sustainability Markets: Who would have won the cold war then? Would the World of Karl Marx Have Existed Then?

Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations under Win-Win and No Win-Win Situations

Have a nice day Yuri

Lucio and Giulio,   A fundamental issue here is how the word "efficient" should be defined.  Capitalist economics defines an efficient outcome as "Pareto optimal," which means no further mutually beneficial exchange is possible.  It measures value according to exchange value or market price. 

Socialism defines "efficient" in terms of an entirely different type of accounting, but it is presumably based on physical input-output relationships (maximum physical output per unit of physical input).  This is the way engineers in most countries think of efficiency.  It is my impression that an engineering concept of efficiency is still the standard method used in China,

An extreme example of how these competing ideas of efficiency affect actual decisions would be the "ghost cities" in China: entire cities of tall buildings with only 1% occupancy.  It is quite possible that these buildings were constructed efficiently from an engineering perspective, even though they are not efficient from a market value perspective.

 Dear Claudia, to bring attention to the issue of distorted markets I focused my attention on sustainability markets to show analytically and graphically why the assmptions of social and enviromnetal externality neutrality  in Adam Smith's model were wrong, that needed to be corrected while sharing ideas on how it can be corrected....if you have time read the paper shared above, specially the following...:

Did Adam Smith Miss the Chance to State the Goal and Structure of Sustainability Markets in His Time? If Yes, Which Could Be Some of the Possible Reasons Behind That?

Adam Smith apparently saw it and had a choice, he could have proposed sustainability markets as the soul of economics then instead of the traditional market, but he did not  ans since 1776 to 1987/Bruntland commission it went unchallenged generation after generation by the economists and thinkers of the day and here we are today fixing it...

Dear Claudia, imaging you have a ring made of three deep paradigm models, then you have another ring made up of three partial partnership based models, and then you have a ring with one full partnership based model....Then you have arrows indicating deep paradigm death, merger, and shift comming from the first ring to the second ring linking them; and then you have arrows from the second ring to the thrid ring indicating partial partnership paradigm death, merger and shifts liniking the second ring  to the third ring, then you will see that they look like waves....from there the ideas of development waves comes...

I will share a paper with these ideas in the coming days

Have a nice day

 Hi Con Your question has cheered me up today - thank you!  

Some women committed to redistributive feminisms might say that gender inequalities are caused by the patriarchy, alongside sexisms intersection with racist, disablist and homophobic discrimination and barriers to equality, that create inequalities experienced by women.  That's not to say capitalism isn't patriarchal too, but the two explanations are different, from a feminist perspective.  Depending on which gender inequalities you are concerned with, would depend upon the explanations you looked for (e.g. are the gender inequalities  you seek to explain linked to violence, health, income, education, housing, transport, welfare, crime etc)?/ I think we are much too nuanced now as a movement to think that one explanation of inequality can suffice in every context.

If you are new to the discussion between feminisms and capitalism, try starting with Nancy Fraser:http://www.ssnpstudents.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Feminism-Capitalism.pdf

If you are more advanced and want to think about gender inequalities in the current recession, try Sylvia Walby's awesome new book, Crisis.  

I suspect every feminist, socialist and capitalist will have a different answer to your question and you may have restarted a vibrant century-long debate!  Do send me a copy when you write on this subject and in the meantime, join us in trying to wear our privileges lightly!

Hope that helps,

Susie

Maybe I should have worded the question differently. Of course there is a literature on free markets. Is there a coherent literature on the action of markets as partial solutions and how they reduce the scope necessary for regulation to fine-tune? It seems like the economics literature is distorted into a free-market school and a regulatory-favorable school without much thought given to how a well-functioning market reduces but will never eliminate competent regulation. That's what I mean by an 80% solution - taking care of most problems and leaving less for regulation to have to deal with.

It just seems to me that someone should have studied the dynamics of how these problems get solved with tradeoffs between market solutions and the inevitable need for regulation to get it right. Most economic theory seems to think that regulation is a blunt instrument and markets get things spot on, but I don't see it. I think that markets are the blunt instrument and sound regulation fine-tunes the environmental problems.

My sense is that that is how markets actually work but I have found few economists who think in those terms.  

I thank you very much Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta for the timely article as I work on a article regarding prebiotic molecules, origin of Life, so it is more likely that I will cite your article. Thank you. I will read, study and come back to you.

Dear Sharifah,

It is understandable that some people have misgivings about the utilization of the concept of "world government" to describe the current state of world politics. Perhaps "governance" would be a more adequate term to denote the sometimes loose and overlapping network of international institutions which have impact on global affairs. It is a system very different from the concept of "government" used in the national context.

Naturally we can use "world government" not only as a descriptive but also as a prescriptive concept -- as a political proposal for the future. To explain what I mean please think of the Stanford definition (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/): "‘World government’ refers to the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority." It goes on to state that "it has not existed so far in human history, yet proposals for a unified global political authority have existed since ancient times..."

Then the link with the idea of capitalism: It is usually claimed that some sort of world government ideas existed before the advent of capitalism (ancient Chinese, ancient Romans etc.) However capitalism is the first truly global economic system, and it is logical that those who think it needs to be regulated at that same global level see merits in a world government.  It is also logical that those liberals who fear the dangers of extending the problems of bureaucracy from national to global level reject it.

That leads us to an important underlying question: Global government (or governance) for what? What do we want to regulate, how and in whose interest? Your question about capitalism in the title may indicate the dominance of economic regulation but that would risk a neglect of political, social, cultural and security issues. It is also a recurrent question how to protect the poor and the weak under such a world government. If somebody creates it emulating the national systems (e.g. majority vote), there is an increased danger of marginalization for small and weak groups.

I am rather doubtful if VOC approach (Hall and Soskice type) has anything concrete to analyse global financialization. I will explain in the subsequent post that VOC approach has a serious theory defect that prevents it analyse and examine globalization phenomenon.

Financialization has been a big topic for Regulationists since 1980's, for they considered finacialization as successor to Fordist regime of accumulation.  They have many books and papers on this theme.

It will be helpful and informative for you to read a review paper like van der Zwan's  

STATE OF THE ART: Making sense of financialization. Socio-Economic Review (2014) 12: 99–129. (see the link below)

It contains major survey on three major approaches: accumulation approach, share value approach and everyday life approach.  

Thank you N. Weatherdon.

Hi. I try to give my perspective on this issue. The problem with socialist calculation problem is not related with the kind of currency or crypto-currency in use. The problem is first of all related with the existence of prices. In fact, in a socialist economic system, there cannot be prices. Value is subjective. Subjective evaluations are dispersed in the minds of economic actors. Market is the place where such evaluations find a synthesis and become objective prices. Generated in this way, prices can act as information transmission vehicles (objective information about subjective evaluations). Without the mediation of market, such evaluations could not be transformed in prices and therefore the information transmission could not happen.

In a socialist economy, market functions is abolished by definition. It means that prices cannot arise. Of course, we can find numerical representations of the assumed value of goods. But such figures would be simply numeraires, decided by the central planner, without knowing the structure of preferences (preferences are the root of values).

Socialist calculation is thus not possible because the information synthesis contained in prices cannot arise. Prices, in order to be generated, need market. This because they are synthesis of millions of evaluations. Information related with such evaluations is dispersed in millions of minds. No central planner can, in a moment, possess all the dispersed information.

As economic process happens in time, personal evaluations are continuosly subjective to revision. Economic plans are individually and continuosly revised in order to take in account the new information acquired through previous economic actions.

With central planning, such a revision, brought out by  the never-ending discover of new information, cannot be accomplished. In fact, central planner is not really an economic actor and in general, without the market, cannot know the intertemporal structure of preferences.

In the same way, salaries are related with the existence of prices, are prices in themselves. Without the market, objective salaries cannot be paid, in any currency or form. Simply because the value of labour in a certain industry cannot be known.

The only way to admit the socialist calculation is to accept an objective theory of value, according to which personal evaluations plays no role in the formation of price. But to admit this would mean to deny the essence of economic action: the choice, execution and revision of ends-means frameworks though plans generated by individual preferences and expectations.

Dear Jiakang,

soft capitalism emphasises the importance of attributes like creativity, empathy or flexibility, also called "soft skills". Representatives of soft capitalism emphasises these attributes, because - in their opinions - soft skills are needed in order to get the full human potential in the process of working.

So there's the link to HRM (human resource management): This part of the operational management has got - for instance - the task of personnel development. This means to plan, organize or carry out soft skill trainings.

But HRM has also got the task of staff recruitment. Stressing "soft skills" in the sign of "social capitalism" leads to application procedures or assessment centers, which integrates group work (role plays, imitation of job situations etc.) in order to get the most likely candidate for the job.

Discussing this on a meta level, you can take a critical point of view, because there's often a discepancy

between hard / harsh working conditions in the sign of efficiency and effectivity (people often have to change their job in their lifetime, they often have to update their professional knowledge, they often have no / little occupational safety) - these factors lead to more competition and to more fights for the best jobs, so the affected people don't want to act empathically or socially -

and - in the opposite - the requirement for more social skills in the world of work.

In order to be honest, my statement is based on my academic training and professional knowledge in an western industrialized country, respectively Germany. This means, that you have to consider the special cultural, social, legal and political frame conditions of the world of work, that is to be analyzed.

(Background: I can well imagine, that there are other ideals / values about the importance of work, viewing other culture areas.)

Additionally, I add a few publications for your insight:

Nigel Thrift (2005): Knowing capitalism, Sage Publications. (chapter 2: rise of social capitalism)

Tania Ellis (2004): The era of compassionate capitalism. A vision of holistic leadership development in the 21st century. executive MBA dissertation, Henley Management College.

Florian Schulz (2013): The psycho-managerial complex at work. A study of the discursive practices of management coaching, dissertation, University of St. Gallen.

Paul du Gay and Michael Pryke (Ed.) (2002): Cultural Economy. Cultural Analysis and Commercial Life, Sage Publications. (see the chapter of Paul Heelas: Work Ethics, Soft Capitalism and the `Turn to Life')

Good luck with your research project and kind regards! Detlef

Max Weber (1947) analyzed religion and it's impact on economic organization of the society. According to him religious beliefs are the driving or restraining force for generating entrepreneurial activity. The religious beliefs play a crucial role in determining the behaviour or actions of the entrepreneur towards generating or limiting profit. Weber is the first among the social scientists, who took the position that entrepreneurial growth is dependent upon the ethical values of society.

Various factors are explained till now to give a proper analysis of entrepreneurial development. For instance ethical value is said to be the significant factor for  entrepreneurial behaviour for Max Weber (1947).