![]() ![]() However, we hope that by reflecting on the historical constellation of theoretical development, we will be able to attain the critical dimension of this discipline as a social science. Thus, at first, on the level of a simple comparison of capital theories, we must remain in the positive dimension of the historical development of economic science. We use this pair to suggest the level of reflection-whereas “positive” denotes a flat description of the term such as a definition of, or generalization about phenomena, “critical” means the quest for the essence that is revealed by reflection.įrom the past to the present, most researchers stayed in the domain of positivist science and refrained from entering the “critical” dimension due to their fear of speculation. Here, we are not using the term “positive” and “critical” in the sense of the author’s political attitudes. This means that his theory of capital is located both on a positive dimension, but also on a critical dimension. ![]() As most people know, Marx’s lifework, Capital, has the subtitle A Critique of Political Economy. What place does Marx’s theory of capital occupy in the history of economics? 1 One difficulty in answering this question is that his theory of capital has plural dimensions, so it is hard to briefly summarize. Three moments that compose Marx’s concept of capital Thus, we must now ask if two centuries of mankind’s history has discovered a solution or made any progress in this respect. Marx would recognize the relationship of production that emerges out of the antagonistic split between subjective and objective elements (“primitive accumulation”). The peculiarity of Marx’s capital theory lies in its critical dimension, which supersedes the positivistic theorizing of ordinary economists. However, viewed from the materialistic perspective of capital theory, he had successors in the Russian planners of socialist centralized economy in the twentieth century. Marx’s view of capital shows several fundist characteristics in line with the classical economists preceding him. In this respect, Hicks’ distinction of capital theoreticians between “fundists” and “materialists” is useful. Thus, this article discusses Marx’s critical reception of his predecessors and the investigation after him. Its aim is to identify the position of Marx’s theory of capital in the history of economics. This was originally written in mid-2018 to celebrate the 200-year anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |