In. Marxism, Communism and Western Society. Vol.3, New York 1972, S. 64 - 79()~ LCONO:vt 1('"11 I H)({Y

ECONOl\1IC 'I'll EORY

A. Definition of the COIH:Cpt and RelallOllshlp 10 Olhcr SOl:ialS~iences

I. TerminologyII. Possibilities vI' ClassificationII I. Economi~s and So~ial S~ienu:

B. Historical Ou timeI. Pre-Classical and Classi~al EconolllicsII. Marx's Critique of Political EconolllYIII. Nco-Classical and Keynesian E~Ofll)ll1ic TheoryIV. Further Developmenl of Marx's Pl)lill~al Lcol1olllY

C. The Political Economy of So~iallslll

D. Comparative AspectsI. Economics and IdeologyII. Economic ModelsIII. Value-Judgments and Praxiolog)

A. Definition of the ConCl'pt and Rdafiullshipto Other Social Scil'llH's

I. Tt'IB1INOI 0(;'1'

"Economic theol")" has been up to nuw a conceptdiscussed solely among social scientists in We"terncountries and it has only recently been applied in thesocialist countries. Nt>t until the 20th century did "Cl'O­nomic theory" begin tu take the place of the terms

"politll'al ecollomy" and "l'~'oIlUnl1ls", although the!attn are still used hee h()!\;()\Il<" PO!IIICAII:(O~()\IY). This change was inllialed primarily byAlfrcd Marshall (I X42 192·~), who ulhkrstood "politicalel'ollOmy" as the pradical applicatlull t>h:nlnofllics anJtherefore ddibnatdy restricted its meaning, whichoriginally covered buth theory alld ;Ipplication (Pri,,·cljJ!n o( Lcol/o/llics, .... p. ~\).

'1'1\1'0 distinctioll is closely l"llllllCded 1)Jl the un!: handwllh the development of el'ollOIllil' 1"~oIY alilt 011 theother hand wllh the metlludoluglcal dlSl'lisslun whichto(lk place at the lurn or thi ... Cl'lltlllY As a result ofthcse dc\c1opllll'nts. "p(llitll,d Cl'UlhllllY" is 1l0W usedin at Ica"t fOllr dilklCllt meanin1!s (lr I· rcy. I )I~ ;lkn,nomlsche Theorie dcr Politik (ldcr dic ncue pt)litische()konomie, ... ): (I) as a sy lHH1) m r(lr lh~ conccpts "cco­lIumic theory" and "cl'onuIllics", \\llh no dcar distinc­tion bcill!! made hetween ecollumicthco! y and its politi·cal applications, i.e. es"cntially in thc d,lssical sense;(2) in the narruwer scnse of MarAist pullticaleconomy(as a consequence of the frcquent substitution or "politi·cal el'lll1omy" hy the more neutral tlTms "cconomlcs"or ''l:collomic theory", terms whidl Ila\e been acceptedby most "bourgeois" economists but Ilot by MarXIsteconomists): (:1) in ordcr to ... tress thc '>ocia!. politicaland Illstitlltinnal aspects (If lCUlhHlIlC acti\'ity (d I,id·mann-Keil, 1:'iJljii!lrtlllg ill di,' !}oliusc/w (jkolllllllie, ,);and (4) with rckrel1l'e to Ihe study (If interactions be·tween the political and the el'llhlmic sub-systems within"bourgeuis" or non-Marxist sOl'ial scicnce (alsu termed"economic theory of pl>litics").

In the following we shall lise the lirst meaning (i.e.assuming approximate syllonymity hetween economictheory and political economy), Ih>t only in order to

maintain a loose comparability betwcen hourgeois andrvtarxist economics but also for the historical rea~n

that the above-mentioned dcbate on these terms provedto be fairly sterile.

Although economists of most schools of thoughtgenerally agree on the problems to he dealt with ineconomic theory. there exists no commonly acceptedddlnition. Hence it is perhaps advisable to rollow thetautological definition attrihuted to Blaug or Viner:"Economics is what economists do", In view or thecommon agreement on most practil'al problems, theneed for a universal definitioll becoIlH:" less pressing.Ilidden hehind the ditkrent terms alld dctinitions arenot so much disagreements on the sep;lration from otherfields of scientific research, especially in the socialsciences, or from other branches or economics, butrather fundamental ditkrenccs in the sl'icntJlic approachto the conception of ecollumie illter.-elatil)nship as atheoretical problem. This become" pa nicu!arly appar­ent if olle compares c1assil'al and Marxian conceptionswith tlhlSC of nco-classical economists.

The diflerent dcfil1ltions or eL'olHHnic theory rdereither t·) the listing of various brandles or to generalconcq"s obtained by ptlstulating spel'ilie economiclaws, (I) to the emphasis or particular Illcthodologil'al

ECONOMIC TIfFORY

aspects (e.g. the rl'l;llion~hip hetween means and elll.b).

To exemplify these possihilities it is expedient to Illcn­tion some well-kn(mn definitions. Thus. for example.Adam Smith speaks of "an inquiry into the natureand callsesofthc wealth of nations" (J 776). while Da\JdRicardo is ("hielly concernl't! with the investigation ofthe "laws governing distrihution" in his Principlcs II!Political 1:01110/111' lIlIe! rtlXlItilll/ ( I X17). Fried rich Engelsdcllnes political economy in a positive way as "thesciencc of the laws govcrning the production and ex­change of the material means of suhsistence in humansociety" (Engels. Allti-Diihrillg..... p. 2(4). Karl Marx.on the other hand. gives a negative connotation. dis­tinguishing clearly hetween political economy and anahistoricaI. technological view of economics: " ... polit­ical economy is not technology" (Marx. Introduction... , p. 266). Economic theory experiences a definitc rc­striction in its meaning when the instrumental side ofeconomic activity is overemphasized and economic be­haviour is generaliled as a specific kind of hehaviourcharacterized by rationality of means and ends (MaxWeber's "Zweckrationalit:it"); overemphasis of thiskind was initiated above all hy Lionel Robhins (1932).This "praxiological limitation" and. at the same time.generalization of economics (cf. Lange. Political EcolI­

amI'..... vol. I. chap. 5) determines most of the morerecent definitions of economics, such as Paul Samuel­son's (Econo/llics . .... p. 4):

"Economics IS lhe sludy of how men and society end lipl!rol/sing. with or withoUl the usc or money. to employ \/i//'(('

productive resourc..:s which could have alternatIve uses. toproduce various commodities and distribute them for con­sumption. now or in the ruture. among various people andgroups in the society",

Erich Preiser defines economics by giving an accountof its most important fields: the prohlem of regulatingan economy with division oflabour (by markets. centralplanning or a combination of both). the question ofdistribution of national income. and finally the investi­gation of the conditions of steady growth (cf. Preiser.Natio//afijkOllOlI1ic hcutc..... p, 16-21). A similar butmore concise definition is given hy Oscar Lange (01'. cit.,

vol. I. p. I):

"Political economy. or social economy. is the study or thesocial laws governing the production and distribution or thematerial means of satisfying human needs".

As far as a conceptual clarification of economictheory (or, generally. of economics) is possible bydefinition. the two laller notions seem to be most use­ful; they are. therefore. taken as a general basis forthe following exposition.

II. POSSIRILITIFS OF CLASSIFICATION

A classification of economic theory (economics) ispossible and usual according to various criteria. Onlythe most important types of classification can be enu­merated here: an appropriate discussion of the pre­conditions and the consequences of certain c1assifica-

lions would require similar to a definition ofeconom·ics a clarification of questions concerning philos­ophy and Ihe sociology of knowledge.

Classification into single hranches of economicse.g, husiness economics. agricultural economics.

economics of finance. etc .. is hardly controversial. Onthe other hand. classification of political economy ac­cording. to the respective "mode of production" (q.v.) isbasically a Marxist line of approach: according toMarxist theory the political economy of capitalism(4,v.) has to he distinguished from a political economyof socialism (q.v.). which has its own categories andlaws. The most important methodological problemconcems the treatment of categories and laws that arecommon to hoth (or all) social formations and shouldtherefore he largely neutral with respect to diflcrenthistorical and social systems (e.g. the most elllcientallocation of resources or the best satisfilction of humanneeds within a society). Even though the concreteforms of the solution reached depend heavily on theunderlying social relations of production (St.'C PROIHJC­TION RUATIONS) and on the respective state of pro­ductive forces (q. v.), significant common (or even uni­versal) features can he found from the scientific pointof view. The methodological prohlem of the relationsbetween general concepts (e.g. economics) and specifichistorical manifestations (e.g. capitalism and socialism)has not been slllllciently reflected on as yet.

If one accepts the possibility of objective and gener­ally valid knowledge. further classifications can hecon/oitrued, Following the usage in the natural sciences"pure" economics can he distinguished from "applied"economics. Whereas the notion ofpurc economics relat­es to thinking in models. the forms of applied econom­ics are very difTerent and hardly comparable. If appli­cation means. for example. empirical examination oflheoretical derivations hy statistical and econometricmethods. this kind of application differs hasically froma practical use of economic theory for economic policy.Depending on its practical consequences predictiveapplication of economic theory belongs more to thefirst or the second of the two above-mentioned formsof application. While econometric application serves theexamination of the possihleempirical content ofceonom­ic theories hy positing hypothetical sets of figures(the "counterfactual" approach) and. therefore. doesnot normally directly influence economic reality. theapplication ofeconomic theory to practical policy meas­ures is aimed at a direct change if economic reality (seeSOCIAL AND ECONO\lIC POLICY).

The c1assiflcation of economic propositions into"positive" and "normative" statements and the conse­quent separation between "positive" and "normative"economics is even more prohlematic. This distinctionis based on the postulate of "freedom from value­judgments" (Wertllrteils{rcihcit) stipulated by MaxWeher and today maintained in a modifled manner bythe nco-positivist school of thought, i. e. the assertionthat it is possible and necessary to separate the scientif-

H .() N () \1 J(' T J II () ({ y

ic ;lI1alysis Ill' Ilhjccti\c rl\t!ity rr,ll11 ih sllhjc~:tiyc

C\'aillatilln. A "imil;lr idl'a lIlHkrlll'" Ihc distinction hc­t\\l'cn descriptive and prcscllpti\l' L'Clln(1l11ic thcoryhnally, it is also possible to dls"d)' aCl'l)rdin~ to themethods applied,

Concepts like "percert;\L'eCOllolllics" (Wel'l1l'1 SOI1l­

ha rt 's "verstehende Na tioll;l!i,k Olll lillie") wh ich rerer tothe econo/llist 's suhlective and sympathctic understalld­ing or the invcstigatcd prohlem or epoch arc prohahlyohsolete. On the othcr hand. it is comnlllnly rcc0i!niledtoday that lllatheniatical methods and 1110dcls arc u<,e­rul and necessary ror an,tlysl',s. pl(l~ll(1seS and appli­cations or economic theory to l'cpnomic policy, Ac­cordin~ly the notions "m:lthcmatical cconomics" and"mathematical economic thcory" only indil'ate that theapplication or mathcmatic" lIll'thods and Illodels isparticularly extensive and sophisticated.

111. L(' ()" <)\11< S \ '" I ) S()( 1\1 S<" "< I

The rundamental <.:onllict Ik'!\'-l'l'l1 hOllq;cuis andMarxist economics hecomcs must <.'Vident in the deter­mina~ion or. its place in the general system or sciences.Marxist political economy occupies a central positionin the dialectical-materialist conception of science. Byanalysing the genesis. funclion ;lIld deGly' or ditlcrentmodes of production it is. 'i(l to speak. the key to anunderstanding or science and society (IS a whole, Thi,sevaluation appears very cle;lIly in the tkhate hetweenhlgen Dlihring and Friedrich rn~els. I hilS in his Allfi­

IJiihrillg (l X77 7X: I',n~ l'd.' M. tt»)l)) Lngels statesthat "the economic structure of snciety" determines allother social spheres (ihid .. p, 4\), Ilo\\'CYer. neitherMarx nor Engels denies the interdcpcnden~'L and inter­actions or the various LICtors, hut the o\erthrow ofeCllnomil' circumstances appclr a<, the mightiest moti­vating force of the entire development. since "the wholevast process goes on in the f<')J'm ofintcral'lion thoughof \'er) unequal forces, the economic m(l\ement heinghy br the strongest. most primordi;t1. most decisive"(Ma r.\. K'. and Fngcls. F. .)"{'!ccln! ('O}'I'I',\/IO}/(/('//('('.

M,. [ILJ55j. p. 50hAccording to the bour,!!.eois view or sciL'nce, on the

other hand. economic theory is a specilic sl'icnce withinthe frame\vork of the social scienccs, This classificationremains formal. ho\,,:evcr. ~Ind it ill\ohes :It least twoimportant and, as yet, unsolvcd problems: ( 1) the rela­til1J1ship between soci:ll and natural scic'llce. or, to liseWindelband's terms, between idio,!!.raphic and nomo­thetic sciences: (2) thl.: intcrrclati<'llship of the dillcrentspherl.:s of social science, particularly the relations nc­tween the economy and thl' society (economics versussociology) and hetwcen the economy ;lIld the state(economics versus political science).

Frequently an intermediate pllsition is attributed toeconomics (cf. Alhert. Il)h-l: Topitsch. I96(): Ilaher­1l1~IS. 1070j, for it tries nn the (lIlC h;md to formulateabstract and univers;t1 laws. the \alidity or which de­pends on the other hand essentially on l'onU"l'te social

cond;,illns, ThIS duall"tic <,\rlll'lure of econn1l1ic lawsconstitutes the m:,in suhjcct of tilL 1l1cthodological dis­cussi, \11 in cconomics l'vcr since ()ul'snay (175X) and thephy",! lnats

Jill' \arious aspel'ls of these basic methodologicalquestions will be illustrated in the rollowing by ahrief sketch of the historical development of economictheory.

B. Ilistorical Outline

I. PKI-CI ASSICAI. ANIl ('I ASS(CAI. LC()~O\l(,S

The gencsis of a specilic economic science as dis­tinguished from theology and philosophy is historicallyand thematically connl'cted with the decay of the feudalsystem ,lI1d the rise of capitalism, The restricted micro­economic and isolated \iews of cameralism and mer­cantilism were directed to\va rds the fiscal interests of theterritorial sovereigns in the age of ahsoluti"m, therebyneglecting the interrelationships and efl'ects in the econ­omy as a whole: this partial point of vicw was supple­mented ;lI1d modified in the course of the IXth centuryhy thc idea or economic interdependence an ideafundamcntal to economic theory,

The actual prime of classical bourgeois economicsstarts with All /II(j/lin' illfo II/(' NlIflll'C (/I/d ('0/1\('1 oltheJI'/'iJlflJ O/1V'OfioJlS (1776). thc major work of the Scottisheconomist and moral philosopher Adam Smith. Themost important principles of thc capitalist economicsystem privare property. freedom of contract. libertyor trade. individual self-interest and the connection ofdivision or lahour with the exchange of goods on (free)markets arc devcloped in his work partly from ab­stract theoretical reasoning. pa rtly from considerationor moral philosophy and finally also from immcd;atepractical considerations. In accord;lnce with the histori­cally progressive role of the hourgeoisie in oppositionto Ihe systl'ms of feudalism and mercantilism. Smithconl'l'ives a functit)ning capitalist competitive systemas an actually ohtainable "natural order" (whereas thephysiocratic "ordre naturcl" represented an essentiallyunobtainahle theoretical ideal), hut he docs not con­sider the possihle historical limitations of capitalism asa methodological prohlem. Nevertheless. Smith alreadysees the negative side-efrccts and consequences of thecapitalist cconomic order concl'ived hy him as ·'natu­ra''': thus, for example. ill \iew of the lacking qualifica­tions of workers in the capitalist ractory system, heohsef'\es that "the man whose wlwle life is spent inperforming a few simple operations ... gener;t1ly he­comes as stupid and ignorant as it is possihle for ahuman creati\l~ to hecome" (Smith, All !J/(/Ilirr . ... vol.2. p. 2X4l.

Technically. Smith lags hehind Quesnay's interpre­tdtion of economic circulation (sec CIRCUIAK FlOW)

and he neglects in his theory or reproduction thc idea ofconstant capital (q.\.). as well as the division or \alllcadded into variable capital and surplus value. On the

FCOf';OM Ie TH FORY 67

other hand. he suhstantiates the largely formal ide.t oflhe inlerdependence orcircliJar flows hy the ohser'..alionthat the co-operation and the adjustmenl of the l'l)lIllt­less decisions made individually and independent" ofeach olhcr on difrerent markets lead undcr ccrt;tinconditions with the help of an "invisihle hand". as ilwere. to a "natural order" of stahle cquilihrium. Boththe incxact distinction het\veen theoretical. practicaland normativc foundations in his arguments and thcintcmal deficicncies of his cconomic theory give rise tofrequent contradictions:

"Adam Smith's contradictions are of significance hecausethey contain prohlcrm which it is true he does not solve, hUIwhich he reveals hy clllllradicting himself' (Marx. Thcoril'Jof Surplus Valul' .. .. , p. 146/.

According to Marx the epoch of classical economicsends with David Ricardo (1772IXl2). whose majorwork Principles of' I)o!itiml Ecol/olllr OI/(l Taxotiol/

(IXI7) centres on the investigation of the "laws govern­ing distrihution". Contrary to Smith. Ricardo empha­sizes strict modcl analysis. but ncvcrtheless tries to uscthe conclusions derived from his models for practicaleconomic policy. Thc lahour theory of valuc. only par­tially supported by Smith. is further developed hyRicardo: but the distinction (later on basic for Marx)bct\\CCll values (determined by the respective amountsof labour) and (production) prices (determined by thetendency of equalization of the rate of profit) is alsoobliterated by Ricardo. Already in Ricardo's lifetimeeconomic theory. which hilherto had been undivided inspite of many differences in detail. was split into atleast three different streams:

I. The "vulgar economists". so called by Marx. be­ginning with Thomas Robert Malthus. Jean-BaptisteSay and John Stuart Mill. Marx characterized thisschool of thought no dOllht one-sidedly, but probablyin principle correctly ~- as follows:

"Once for all I may here state. that by classical PoliticalEconomy, I understand that economy which. since the tImeof W. Petty. has investigated the real relations of productionin bourgeois society. in contradistinction to vulgar economy.which deals with appearances only, ruminates without ceasingon the materials long since provided by scientific economy,and there seeks plausihle explanations of the most obtrusivephenomena, for bourgeois daily usc. but for the rest. con­fines itself to systematising in a pedantic way, and proclaim­ing for everlasting truths. thc trite ideas held hy the self­complacent hourgeoisie with regard to their own world. tothem the besl of all pmsihlc worlds" (Marx, Capital• .... vol. I,p. 81, footnote/.

Nevertheless. not only the classical economists (par­ticularly Smith and Ricardo) but also the best repre­sentatives of "vulgar economics" (especially Say andMill) influenced Marxian economic thought.

2. The left Ricardians (Thompson. Hodgskin. Raven­stone and others). who derived from the Ricardianlabour theory or value egalitarian consequences andpractical political aims such as the right of labour toits full return.

~. Whereas these two lines of thought emphasizedcertain aspects of c1assicaI economics. the elder his-

toriel1 school of economic thought in Germany (WilliWilhelm Roscher as leading representative) evolved asa strong. counter-reaction against Ricardian modcl­thinking. with its possihly trouhlcsome political consc­quences. This school of thought replaced the theoreticalassessment of economic interrelations by a historicaldcscription of \arious phenomena. as did the later"younger historical school" of economic thought withGustav Schmoller as its chief exponent.

Apart from these three main lines of economicthought in the middle of the 19th century. the begin­nings of mathematical ahstractions which originatedalso from Ricardo were further developed only in asporadic manner and mostly in a more speculative fonn(e.g. the beginnings of a subjective theory of value tohe found in Nassau Senior. Dupuit and Gossen). Herethe theoretical work of the German economist JohannHeinrich von Thiincn (17X~ I X50) is an important ex­ception: in his major work lkr iso!icrte Staat i11 [J('­

:ichllllg Oll/Llllldll·i,.(,c!w/r 11. NariOlwliikollol1lic (Vol. I.IX26) he applies with remarkable skill the method ofabstraction and isolation and uses calculus to examinethe interrelations between agrarian production andurhan markets.

II. MARX'S CRITH.)lII 01' POLITICAL ECONOMY

The most important principles of Marx's theory areas follows:

I. Bourgeois economic theory sufTers-- accordingto Marx from a fundamental methodological error:it tends to take the spcciflc laws of a certain socialformation (i.e. capitalism) to be universal laws of na­ture.

"Economists express the relations of hourgeois production,the divi"ion of lahour. credit, money. elc .. as fixed immutable,eternal categories... Economists explain how productiontake" place in the ahove-mentioned relations. but what theydo not explain is how these relations themselvcs are produced,that is. the historical movemcnt which gavc them birth"(Marx. The Porerty of Philosophy• ... , p. 104/.

The resulting mystification of the capitalist modeof production as an almost natural or perpetual modeof production is investigated and demonstrated by Marxon dilkrent levels.

2. On the methodological level this mistake appears- according to Marx in appropriate abstractions.

concepts and categories. Marx illustrates this in hisbltrodlletiol1 to the Critique' or Poliliml Em110l1ll' (1859)hy the example of production being on lhe one hand auniversal technical process and on the other hand aspecific social one. The confusion of the technicalaspect of production with the social conditions deter­mining production at any given timc constitutes forMarx the fundamental error of bourgeois economics:

"Production hy isolated individuals outside of society ...IS as great an absurdity as the idea of the development oflanguage without individuals living together and talking toone another. ... Whencver we speak, therefore. of production.

!('ONOM le'l 1I1.0R),

Wc' alway\ have in 1ll1l10 rrol!ucflon ;It ;) CI.·r!;tlll ,Iagc of ",cla!.devL'!oprnenl. or production hy \(lClal 111,lI",dll;)" /"""1/1'­li,,,, ill go/l'''(// i, an ah,lracllon. hill II " a r;llional ah,trac­(1(111, In \0 far a\ II 'dngle, Oil' and livc' Ihe CIll111l1011 fca­lure,. Ihereby s<JVlI1g us rerefilion" (~1;IP.. Introduction ..r. 26H f)

Thc dccisive poinl of Marx's lllL'l!Jodnlogic;d niti­cism i... the impt,ssihility of a "r,ltional ;Ih ... lradion"which ahstracls from lhc spccilic ..,ocial condition ...and thm. in Marx's opiniol1. from thc e scntialcharac-leri ... lic of human lahour. J It: cxcmplific this in ,tnalogyto human languagc:

"Yet Ihe\e general or COIlIIIlIlIl feature\ dl,eO\CIClI hy COIl1­

rarl,on constltutc something very cDmpk,. ",11\)\e cOIl,tlluelltc1el11ents have dillerent destlnalioll\. Some Dr these clementshelong 10 all erochs, others arc C0l111T101l to a few. Some ofthem arc cornll1on to the 1l10\t lI10dern a\ well as 10 the moqancien! erochs. No prOdUC(IO,l " COIKe/\ ahle wllhoUl thcm;but whde even Ihc rnoSl (';olllpk'lelv developed languages havclaws and conditions in CO!lllllon wllh the lea\1 developed oncs,whal i\ characteristic of tll\:ir de\e1opmcllt arc Ihe rOlntsof deparlure from thc gCllcral alld COIl1I1HlIl. The COl1tlilionswhich gencrally govern product lOll Il1USI he' dil1'crcntlatc'd 111

order that tl)e essential poinl\ of dJffcrcm:c Ix: IlOt 10\1 Sightof 111 view of the gelleral ulliforl11ily which i\ due 10 thefact thai the \uoject, mankind. and the ohject, nalme. remainthe same. The failure 10 n:melllher thl\ olle fact 1\ the source ofall the wl~dolTl of modem eCOI)(lnll~t, wIHI arc (rylf1g 10 rrovethe ell:rnal nature and harmony of cXhling \ocia! condllions"(ihid.. p. 2(9).

Thc conceptu;11 conseLJucnce... of this confusion of'technology thc statc of plo(\Ul'livc linccs (q.v.)with society lhe social relations of production (sccPRO()lI('TION RIIATIONS) arc quitc oh\iolls. Marx.illustratcs them hy equatillg thc material instruments ofproduction with the social category of clpital:

"Thu\ they say, e.g .. that no rrodllcllon is po,,,hlc withoutsome in\lrUlllenl of pwductioll, leI lhal illqrulllclll he onlythe hand; that none is po\Sihlc wllhoul pa\l ilccul11111atec!laoor. e\en if Ihill lahor cOIl\;\1 of ml'fe skill which has oeenaccull1ulalcd and concentralcd in the hand of the savage hyrepealed exercise. Capllal is. among other thing\, also aninslrulllCn! of production. abo pa\t lI11per\onal labor. Hencecapi tal j\ a un Iversa I. eternal na tu ra' phenomenon; '" h Ich istrue if we disregarded Ihe srecific propcrtic\ which turn an'instrument of production' and 'stored up laoor' into capital.... If there is no production in gelleral. thne I~ al~o no generalproduction. Production i\ alwaY'S SOllle \peL'ial hranch a/­production or an aggregate, as, c g" a gncu Illl re, slock rillslng,manufat:lures. etc. But political t:t:OIlOll1Y i.s nol lechno)ogy"(ihid.. p. 269 r. I.

3. Hencc the mcthodol(l!-!ic;11 h;lsis of t\1arx.·s critiqucof polil:cal economy is his precisc distinct it)n hctwecnhistorical (i.e. spccifiet!ly s(lci:t!l and sllprahistorical(univcrsal) categories and thcir furthcr spccification intoqualitative and quantitative "spccts. Thcrcfon:. the pro­duction of goods in gencral has to bc distingllishedfrom the production of commoditics for exchange onmarkets: within commodity production as a wholccapitalist commodity production based on conccntratcdprivate ownership of the mcan ... of production forms aseparatc mode of prodllctinn. as analysed hy Marx.Therefore. thc personal relations bctwcen thc "frec"wagc-earncr (frec from legal rcstril'tions. hut also frccfrom pnvatc propcrty) and the clpitalisl who ownsthe means of production appear... ;\s an objcctivc rela­tion ofprodllClS (cxchangcd cqui\ alent I~ in eq uilihriul1l)

nn IIp' markct. Marx trie... to surmount this fetishistiCcharacter or COlllllloditic,,: hy di ... tingui,hing bctweenthe lh~'valuc of a commodity (i.e. its ability 10 satisfyhum;ll\ necds) and thc (cxchangc-) valuc ofa commoditydctcrmined hy thc labour timc socially neccssary forits production. he i... able to discover hehind the veilof equivalent exchange (cxchange of equal valucs) thehasic power structure charactcrilL'd by exploitalion(q.v.); for the capitalist appropriatcs the usc-value oflabour in thc process of production. and the workerreceivcs (theoretically) the cxchangc valuc of his labourpowcr. ~ knce thc total amount of lahour lime is dividedinto the lahour time neccssary for thc worker's repro­duction and the surplus labour time appropriated by thecapitalist. With regard to the category of (cxchange-)value the quanlilalive aspect has to be distinguishedfrom the qualitative aspcct. Valuc as a ({ut/Ii/mirecategol)' serves to characteri;e commodity-producingsocicties: its division into constant capital. variablecapital and surplus valuc prcsupposes a specific divisionof society (into capitalists and wage-earners). The tll/ll/l­

/irati\'(' aspect of (cxchange-) valuc its magnitude­characterizes thc respective state of the productiveforces (measured by the socially necessary lahour time),and the quantitative distrihution of the "value added"hetwecn variahie capital and surplllS-\aluc marks therespective state of class conflict (struggle for distri­hution).

4. Thc distinction \",ith regard ttl method and con­tent hctwccn historical and suprahistorical categoriesand laws which' Marx. cxplains in his combination ofhistorical and analytical investig.ation hy mcans ofpairs of conccpts such as productive forces socialrelalions of production. production ofgoods produc-tion of commodities. usc-value cxchange-value,forms the starting-point of Marx's critique of polilicaleconomy in the three volumes of Ca,'ill//. It impliesat the same time the pcnetration of surface phenomena,through the veil of commodities. and the analysis ofthe fundamental I:lwS of motion of hourgeois society.The hasic principles of thc functioning of capitalismcan be conccived according to Marx. only withinthe framework of a general theo!)' of risc and declineof historical modes of production. For that reasonMarxian economics is understandable only on the basisof historical materialism (q. v.). Economic analysis docsnot only mcan for Marx rcvealing the power structureof a given society. but also its origin and final dccay:in this connection the socio-economic foundations ofdiffercnt forms of domination (see SOCIAL FOR'.IA­

TlONS) have to he invcstigated and understooo in rcla­tion to the developmcnt of productive forces and \vithrcgard to their forms of mediation (e.g. hy commodityrclations or by direct rule). This point has decisiveconscquenccs not only for Marx's methodology hut alsofor his choice and elaboration of concepts: the cate­gories applicd haw 10 scrve Iwt only thc analyticalorg.anization hut also at least potentially lhc de­scription of historical developmcnts. The notion of

I tONOt\1IC TIIIOI~Y

"simpk rl'prndlll'lion··. r(1r l'\alllpk. l'h;ILI\ l.rill· ... theanalytical nllldl'l (11';\ l'nmnwdity-Cl'llilOmy ill which ,tilproducers arc O\\nl'l'S pf thcir mC~lns PI' pn1dl!,r ipn. ;tndit charactni/l's ;IIso thl' situation or in<kpL'nlkn!handicraft and :1!!riclIltur;t! prnductin: bL'fPIL' till' peri­od of mercantilism ,lilt! rarticularly hefore the caritalistfactory svstCIll.

5.lhis W;\y or thinking means a decisive hreak withc1assic;t1 hour!!cois economics, hecausc the lattcr "in­vestig;l\l'd [only] the rcal relations of pwduction inbourgel)is society" (Marx. Cal'iwl, ... , vol. 1. pXI.footnpte) and considered the spcial relations PI' prodlll'­tion simply as given data in its inwstigation. This ap­proach remains essentially superfit'ial according toMarx, hecausc the specific character of capil;lIist pro­duction is neglected (sec aboV(': /\, II). BIHJrgeois eco­nomics starts oul from "the hahit of everyday life"(Marx, A Cli/I/rihll/ioll .... p. ~O) and it is unahledue tp its unhistorical procedure to gain essential ah­stractions for the study of capitalism. it is unableto comprehend its true "nature". Thus bourgeois eco­nomics remains basicdly unscientitlc, hecausc it \;Ikesthe phenomena of capitalism e.g. profit. interestand rent as its essential character. But "all scicncewould he superfluous if the outward appearance andthe essence of things directly coincided" (Marx.Cal'i/a/.. ... vol. 3. p.7(7). The hasic categories ofMarx COl1l1l1odlly and v;lIue (qq.\.) and the con­cepts of commodity fetishism and surplus value dcri\'Cdtherefrom. serve to explain the principles of functioningof capitali:,m on an ahstract level. The dc-mystificationof capitalist production relations hy means of thesecategories forms in a way the guiding principle of thesystematic developmcnt of Marx's critique of politicaleconomy in (·III'i/a!. which can he seen to progressthrough decreasing levels of ahstraction: starling \.. ithproduction of value and surplus value in the firstvolume. via its reali;ation hy sale (in the second vol­ume). Marx finally tries to demonstrate in the thirdvolume its distrihution and in this connection the trans­formation of values into prices (<.j.v.). of surplus valueinto profit (<.j.v.). and the distrihution of profit hetweenthe different classes of owners of means of production(entrepreneurs. landlords. rentiers, etc.). Only on thisvery concrete level does Marx arrive at the economiccategories which arc presupposed hy hourgeoiseconom­ics (cf. Dohias. Zur Struktur des Marxschen Systems.... ). Therefore it is wrong to lake Marx's definitionof the magnitllde of value as an immediale explana­tion of price-relations in developed compelitin: capital­i~111 (a mistake made also hy dogmatic Marxists): andit is also incorrect to posit a fundamental contra­diction hetween the theory of value in the first volumeand the theory 01 (production) p:-ices in the third volumeof Capi/al. as Bi)hm-Bawerk and l3laug, among others.did. Rather. Marx uses here "a way of thinking hywhich thc concrcte is grasped and is reproduced in ourmind as concretc" (Marx. Introdllction .... p. 29·h i.e.he moves from the ahstract categories of value and

surplu ... \ alue to I he 1.:11IlLTcle phenolllena (If pri~ andplll/il. lh tr;Ill ...!(lrllllllg the 11l;lgllillldc of va';,1.: inloprtt'C:'\ and hy dClllPllstrat ill)! "thc domina lion 01 Plll..'l·:,\and PrlCl' llHnelllcnt hy the law of value" (Ma rx, (·([pi/l/I.

... \01. J. p. 174), Man also vindicatcs suhsc4ueptlythc analytic;t1I~ nel..'essary ahstraction from prices in thelirst t\\'o \olllmes of ('(f/Ji/al. which have ;IS their suhjectthe orig.in and the realilation of surplus \alue hut notyet its distrihut ion.

6. Relative III the methodological aspeds of Marx'sCCOI)lHllic<;. which arc placed in the forel;round here,the postulakd "lawsofnwtion" and "tendencies". suchas the Ldling tendency of the raIl' of profit. the Jaws ofinncasin)! impoverishment of the workin)! class and ofaggr;l\at ion of economic crises. and the problem of in­sutlicient etrcctive dcmand. elL'., arc of secondary im­portance Whereas some of the postulated tendenciesheld true such as the increasing concentration andcentrali/;\tion of capital other laws of motion (suchas the law of a rate of profit falling in the long run)could hardly he observed. This non-appearance nfcer­tain prcdicted dC\'c1opments. however. cannot he takenas a rd'utation of Marx's theory: rather. it shows thediflieulties of translating ahstract hasic structures intoempirically relevant statcmcnts. and it signifies the factthat the gain ohtained hy ahstraction in Marx'seconom­ic theory (i.e. the discovery of the hasic powerstruc­tlire) corrcsponds to a loss of concreteness. This appea rsalso in the ditliculties of transforming ahstract valuesinto conuctc (marht or even monopoly) prices (cf.Sherman, The Marxist Theol)' of Valuc Re\·isited .... ).In determining and predicting real prices and connectedphcllomena. hourgeois economics certainly has the up­perhaml due to its greater concreteness of approach.

III. NI O-CI ASSWAI A'Jf) K IYNFSIAN ECONO\1IC

TI11()RY

The de\Tlopment of hourgeois economic theory afterMarx is not immediately determined hy the scientil1cdiscussion of his "critique of political economy". al­though olle might interpret the orientation of theschools or Vienna. Camhridge and Lausanne towardsthe theory of suhjective value at least partly as animmunization of economic theory against Marx's theo­ry ofohjcctive (Iahour) value. While the various schoolsof marginal utility relied methodologically to a largeextent on classical economics. their selection of issuesis strongly determined hy what Marx eal1ed "vulgareconomy": instead of productinn relations, the proh­lems or "the suhjective relation of the purchaser andseller to the goods hought or disposed of heg,m to cometo the fore" (Lange. Poli/ical 1:·collo/1/r.... , vol. I.p. 23\).

\Vhilc Carl Menger and W. S. Jcvons interpreted therelationship hctwel'll commodity and consumer in apsychological sense. namely as a source of satisfactionof need" (and analogously the supply of lahour poweras a source of dissatisl~lCtion or disutility of lahour).

70 I:C'()NOM IC' ·1·111:()RY

the utility theory served Leon Walras. dnd the Lausanneschool founded hy him, as a theoretical explanation ofdemand in his static model of general economic equi­lihrium (q.v.). In an analogous function it appears in theCamhridge school of partial equilihrium. ahove all inthe work of Alfred Marshall.

Along with the inLTeaslIlg li.lrI11alt/ation of neo­classical economic theory especially in (freat Britainand the United States and during a period of rela­tively rapid development of the capitalist countriesuntil ahout 19)0 classical theory and particularlyMarxian economists were increasingly forgotten andeven fell into disrepute. Liheralist and vulgar economicconceptions like Say's law of equilihrium demand. theunderstanding of crisis as necessary processes of ad­justment and catharsis and the transplantation of theeconomic calculations of entrepreneurs into the privatehouseholds hy Vilfredo Pareto's theory of choice (COllrsl[(;COIIOlllie po!itiqlle. . '" I X96 (9). dominated the eco­nomic thinking of this period. As Joan Rohinson wrotein her Essa.\' 011 Marxial/ I:·collomics. this was a period ofcompletc ignorance of Marxian economics. "hrokenonly hy an occasional mocking footnotc" (p.V).Similar to Smith. many leading economists of that timebelieved in a more or less automatic process of self­regulation of the entire economy on all markets. Therole of the government was to he restricted to minoradjustments. especially the protection of (free) com­petition against steadily streng.thening concentration(q.v.) and monopolization.

This situation was altered drastically hy the econom­ic. political and ideological changes hrought ahout bythe Great Depression of 1929)4. The problems ofmacro-economic disequilibrium dealt with by Marx asmanifestations of basic social contradictions were againincluded in economic research. The undeniable similar­ity of the Marxian analysis. especially in Volumes 2and 3 of Capital. with the theories of fluctuation andemployment of John Maynard Keynes. Michal Kalecki.Joan Robinson and others bi to a new discussion ofMarx's economic theory. This discussion remainednevertheless limited to some (surface) phenomena. suchas the hehaviour of macro-economic aggregates likeconsumption. investment. production. national product(qq. v.). etc. Together with the "dynamization" of Key­nesian theory by Roy Harrod (1939. 194X) and EvseyDomar (1946. 1957). the prohlem of "expanded repro­duction" previously treated hy Marx was soon takenup again (see also CIRCUl.AR FLOW. B. VI).

In opposition to the predominance of Keynesian andpost-Keynesian ideas in economic theory and economicpolicy. two important counter-movements evolved. Inthe Anglo-Saxon world the so-called "nco-neoclassicalschool" or "nco-classical approach" emerged. centredat the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. with PaulA. Samuelson and Rohert M. Solow as leading repre­sentatives. Referring to the "old neo-c1assics" Marshalland Walras, the (neo-) nco-classical economists stressedthe flexibility of the capitalist market economy based

(Ill price adjustments and substitution processes inmicro-economic relations as opposed to the rigiditiesof (post-) Keynesian macro-economics. Hence. in their\ iew. substitution and price adjustment constitute themost important clement of (self-) regulation. The con­struct of macro-economic production function withcapital. lahour. land and various forms of technologicalprogress (q.v.) as independent f~lctors of productionwhich was first postulated by the nco-classics. however.is now heing criticized for theoretical and practicalreasons and for its contradictions ("reswitching" phe­nomena. aggregation problems of micro-economicquantities. etc.) (cf. Bhaduri. On the Significance ofRecent Controversies in Capital Theory.... ). On theother hand. models of general (micro-economic) equi­librium are of increasing significance (cf.. for example.Arrow. Hahn. GC/1cral COIII/)etitire A/1alysis. ... ). The"mystification of the capitalist mode of production"(Marx. Capital, . ... vol.). p. 8(9) hy the various fonnsof macro-economic theories of factors of production.which was already stipulated by Marx. has sincebeen confirmed in an impressive manner by themodern discussions on capital theory which demon­strate the logical difficulties and even contradictionsof these approaches (cf. Harcourt. Some CambridgeControversies in the Theory of Capital. ... ; Bhaduri.0fJ. cit.). At the same time. however. also the clas­sical and especially Walrasian idea of the inter­dependence of micro-economic processes has becomemore and more important in modem theorv of equi­librium and capital (cf. von WeizsUcker. Steady StateCapital Thcory.... ). Nevertheless, the largely staticor pseudo-dynamic ("steady state") character of thesetheories and their lack of connection with reality arestill a considerable ohstacle to the fruitful further devel­opment of neo-c1assical theory; the dynamic nature ofthe capitalist mode of production -- emphasized butnot sufliciently elaborated by Marx -- and his "es­sential laws of motion" are as yet not appropriatelyintegrated with economic theory (cf. Grossmann. Marx.die klassische NatiollalJJkollomie II. lias Prohlcl1l derDYIlGmik . ... ).

IV. FURTlIFR DFVII()P~IFNTOF MARX'SPOLITICAL L< ·O;'>J()\IY

The development of Marxian political economy (oreconomic theory. in our sense) and its critique sinceMarx is characterized hya splitting up of his work intoseparate topics (theories of crisis. of imperialism andcolonialism. of concentration. etc.) and by the under­rating of the methodological aspect and the systematiccharacter of Marxian economics. Thus the differentdirections and applications of Marxist economics haveseldom reached a level comparable to Marx's ownstandard. A great number of contributions deal onlywith a "simple reproduction" of 'single theses andtheories often tom out of context. with interpretationaldisputes on the "rcal" content: for example. defences ofMarx's real or supposed position against criticism from

U 'ONOt\,1IC TI I rORY 71

houl~L'l)is L'L'Olll)l11l .. h PI' 11\1111 "rl:\ i"lllni ..~,,". or UI1­

product ive at tempts at iml11uniting or L!\)gm;ltitingMarxian thl:llry I\t the same time. nwst ;!ttclIlpts at arevision of M;trx's theory 1;t!1 /;\r shMt (~r thc theM!lhey critici/c. e\en though some of them \\tTe promptedhy justifiL'd c1l'orts tll n.-vise Marx's theory with a vie\\to adapting it to the changed conditions or 20th-cen­tury capitalism. A ~ood survey of such undertakings isgiven hy Pa ul M. Sweezy in his Thcon' oj ('lI/UIlI!i.11

Dnl'/o/ll1/l'II1 (IY42).Vcry simply. three main trends in the Marxist critique

of hourgeois economics can he distinguished. the ap­proaches and methods of which arc of more than pass­ing interest. They arc:

(J) The further development of Ma rx"s approachesto the theory of imperialism and colonialism hy RosaLuxemhurg. N. I. Bukharin. Rudolf Hilferding. OUoBauer. V. I. Lenin and. more recently. A. G. Frank.Paul Baran. Tom Kemp and Christian Palloix. Thefruitfulness of the Marxian approach. namely its linkingof economic. sociological and historical analysis. is re­vealed in its application to the prohlems ofcolonial andimperialist domination and exploitation of the so-calledunderde\'eloped nations: on the other hand. the /;ll'tthat some of the essential questions-· especially themediation hetween economic and political forms of ex­ploitation (cf. Boris. 19(6) and the relationship he­tween the prohlems of realization and of accumulation- have lIJl to now defied solution means that onecannot speak of a consistent Marxist theory of im­perialism.

(2) The second line of Marxist economics attempbto take into account the modifications of Marxiananalysis motivated hy the transition from competitiveto monopoly capitalism. Particularly Lenin relates thisprocess with the imperialist expansion of the developedcapitalist countries. which was later recognized alsoby Paul Baran. Paul Sweezy and others: at the sametime it is lIseful to give separate attention to thisdevelopment as it appears in the different capitalistcountries. The first attempt at an analysis of the limi­tations of free competition conditioned by the ex­pansion of a monopolistic system of money and credit(q.v.) is to he found in Rudolf Hilferding's Filll1l1::­kapita/ (1907). Later this development is positively inter­preted (among others by Hilferding himself) as a move­ment towards an "organized capitalism" in the commoninterest. i.e. a capitalist order organizablc by the stateand hy social groups (e.g. trade unions, co-operativesocieties. etc.). Recently Baran and Sweezy have triedto furnish a consistent Marxist analysis of "monopolycapitalism" (q.v.) in their monograph of this title (Ba ran.Sweezy. MOlloflo/r Capila/... .): but their inquiry dilrersconsiderahly from the Marxian procedure as to methodand degree of ahstraction. since it basically starts outfrom the sphere of circulation. i.e. from the prohlemsof realization of production. while neglecting the hasicconditions of production. The theories of state monop­oly capitalism (see STATE CAPITALISM. STAn: MONOP-

(II'! C-\I'II-\115\1) maintained in the c()untric~ of theLlstern hloe lire largely determined hy the traditionalLeninist critique of imperialism and contribute verylillie to the analytical illumination of present-dilY capi­talism. They have a more descriptive, in part· evenspeeu la ti\'e cha racter.

()) The mcthodological aspect of Marx's critique ofpolitical cconomy. decisive for Marx himself. has re­cei\'Lxl relatively little attcntion. even from the majorityof Marxist economists. Important exceptions are FranzPetry Uk,. \o:ia/c GC//ll/I dcr Mansc/lI'1I Wl'rIIh('oric,

.... 1(16). lIenryk Grossmann (Dos Akkuf/1u/atioll.l'-

,1;('\('1:: ... : and Marx, ), Maurice Dohb (Po/iliUl/

DIII/(JII11' alld Cal'ila!i.\/}/ 19.17). Adolph Lowe (Mr.Dobh and Marx's Theory of Value, ... , I93X) and PaulSwcezy ( Thl' 7hcorr o( Clf/lilalisl [)CI'c!OplII('I1I .... ,

1(42) among others. SignifIcant elements of Marxianthinking arc also found in some well-known hourgeoiseconomists. for instance Werner Sombart and JosephA. Schumpeter (sec below: C). Only recently has themcthodological signiflcance of Marxian economic theo­ry for modern economic theory been recognized (cf.Meek. 1:'cOIlllf/1ics al1d !d('%gl' .. . ). The present-daymethodological discussion of Marx's system attemptson the one hand to relate Marxian economics to hisentire work and on the other to clarify the relationand respective spheres of validity of Marxist andbourgeois economic theory: important contributionsto this problem have corne especially from Dobb, Lange(Marxian Economics and Modern Economic Theory.. .. : also Po/ilical I:'COIIOIIII' • ... ) and Piero Sraffa (Pro­

dlluio/l o["Cof/1f/1odili('s hI' A-fl'l111S (!(Colllllwc!ilics... .).

C. The Political Economy of Socialism

Even more unsatisfactory than the further develop­mcnt of Marxian political economy of capitalism (secahove: B. II\) are the present-day approaches to apolitical economy of socialism based on Marxianthought. The lack of a sound methodological basis andits defective empirical foundation has various causeswhich arc hard to assess as to there respective effects.Besides a voluntaristic underestimation of objectiveeconomic laws in the transitional period by leadingMarxist theoreticians (Bukharin. 1920; Preohrazhen­sk ii. IY26: and. more recently, cspecialIy Gucvara. 1969)and the political suppression of economic discussionparticularly in the Stalinist era, one has to look for theorigin of this phenomenon in Marx's theory itself. Thecentral theme of the economic analysis of Marx andEngels was the critique of hourgeois economics andsociety. and not the immediate construction of con­crete contents of the economics of socialism. whichaccording to Marx and Engels "utopian socialists"

in contrast to their own "scientiflc socialism"--­erroneously try to do. Of course. there can be foundin Marx's and Engels's writings, scattered in differenttheoretical and political contexts and on various levelsof ahstraction, isolated hints for the principles of func-

U'ONOMIC THFORY

tioning of a socialist society. But tlll:~l' (llitlilll· ... ;1I'l' norelao<.nated in a systematic conlL:xt (unlike ~brx'~

analysis of capitalism) and they oftell only sl'I've tocontrast sharrly the features of a future socialist societywith the existing capitalist sOl·jety. el1lrh;lsi/jll~ thenegation or the rckvant characteri"til's of capitalism.The most c1anorate remarks on this que~ti()ns arcfurnished by Marx in his Crilll!/W (1/ f!lc (,ofho Pro­

Rwmnll' (1~75). Here he differentiates between a "lirstphase of communist society" (in othcr rlaces also called"socialism") emerging aftcr "rrolonged birth pangs"from capitalist society and still be;lring the "bitth marksof the old society" and. on the other h;llld. the "llIgherphase of communist society'·. the true communism,Only in this last phase can the communist princirlcssuch as "From each according to his ability. to eachaccording to his needs" (in Mal'\'. Fl1gcls SII'. vol. 2.p.2.H.) be fully practised,

The material demarcation orthe tripattition sketchedhere ("birth pangs"; first phase S<lL'ialism: secondphase communism) is just as controversial as thedetermination of their factual or foreseeable durationand the question of their resrective independence.especially the problem of the validity of specific Jawsin these phases. This stems primarily frOI11 the factthat there is no clear characteri;ation of these phasesby Marx and Engels and. secondly. because Ihe answerto these questions immediately touches on the politicalpractice of the fonnerly capll,dist countries, Based onthe historical experience of the So\'iet Union and theother socialist countries, there emerges a general agree­ment that the transitional rcriod until fully developedcommunism is relatively indepelHknt. is of considerableduration and is determined hy specific economic laws,However. almost all concrete attcl1lph to characterizethis tr,lnsitional period arc highly controversial. Twocentral issues dominate present-day discussion: (I) thequestion of Ihe applicability of Marxian categories.such as commodity, value. surplus valuc. la\\/ of \'alue.which Marx had developed for the investigation ofcapitalism. and their possible mcaning in socialism: and(2) the relation between on the one hand the quanti­tatively and praxiologicaJly orientated theory of plan­ning and orerations research. which at least fonnallyshows some hasic similarity with the respective develop­ments in Western cconomic. and on the other handthe more qualitative political economy of socialism. andin connection with this. the relation bet\vecn economictheory and Marxist economics.

Since even among thc Marxist participants in the dis­cussion of thcse questions there is no common hasis ofmethodological premises and even less of concepts tohe used. only some of the important contrihutionscan be listed here. The beginning of the scientific debateon the economics of socialism besides some con­tributions of bourgeois theoreticians as to the appli­cability of economic theory to socialist societies (cf.esrecially Barone. Pril/cipi tli C('OI/Oll/ill !w!ifi('tI.... )-- lies in the peri<Xt of construction of socialism in

the Soviet lJnioll after 1917 (sec. above all. Oohb,.\'o\'iCf 1~'('(lI/(/I//I( /)('\('1(/111//0[(\11/((' /l)/7., " : and Er·lich. 1'1[(' .'./lrICI 1I/(IIIslriall:(/flo// Ikhafc. /924 28.. , ,I.;\s early a~ 1922 N,I, Bukharin Iq,v,) statl'd in his bookun "The Economics of the Transitional Period" theeconomic laws rosited by him lor the transitional peri·od. which he and many others regarded as short-lived:on thc other hand. Preohrazhcnsky attempted in his'The New Economics" (1926). which was more con·cretely orientated towards the actual problems of theSoviet economy. to transplant the Marxian notion of"so-called primitive capitalist accunllllation" (Capilal,

. , " vol. J. char.24) to the Soviet construction of in­dustry. which in his opinion (and in later rractice)should be possible with the help ofa "primitive socialistaccumulation" from agriculture.

The second phase of discussion started after theestablishment of the socialist camp. with its countriesof dif1"erent levels of economic development. and espe­cially after the death of Stalin in 195), Economists ofthe more advanced socialist countries (Poland. EastGermany. Czechoslovakia) demanded a modificationof the centralized planning system taken over from theSoviet Union by the introduction of "socialist marketrelations" (Brus. 1957. 19() I: Ikhrens. 1957: et al.);the theoretical basis of these rropositions was the pos·tulation of an "intensive period", characterized by theminimization of inputs. aftcr the "extensive period"which was merely orientated towards maximization ofoutput and created the material basis for the higherstate of productive forces in the subsequent "intensivereriod" (cf. Altvater. Rationalisierung u. Demokrati­sierung.. , ,). But ever since the famous (though theo­retically less important) article on "The Plan. Profitsand Bonuses" hy E. G. Liberman (Plan . pribyl' -­premiia. In P['(l\'({l1, Sept. 9. !9()1). substantial clementsof the propositions of Brus and Behrens were put intopractice at an IIlcn:asing rate (in Last (icrmany afterthe introduction of the "new economic system of plan­ning and conducting the economy" fN()SPLJ in 1963and its successors lOSS. etc.]: sec also ENTERPRISE,Part I. B), The relaxation of the central planningsystem. the introduction of market and co-operativerelations and especially the application of economic in­centives such as prices. interest. bonuses. credit. etc"finally led toa discussion about the compatibility of thesemeasures with the principles of socialism formulated byMarx, Engels and Lenin and about the socio-economiccontent of these and other categories (especially ofcommodity. value and the validity of the law of valuc).The debate is still heing carried on. Outstanding rep­resentatives of the "leftist critique" of these measuresarc esrecially Charks Bcttclheim and Ernest Mandel.Bettclheim, moreover, tries to create the foundationsof a Marxist critique of the political economy of so­cialism and of a theory of transitional so'cieties by afurther elaboration of Marxian conceptions (Bettel­heim. Ca{cul (;('(/fl(1l11llf/(C CI timllcs til' prop,Nl£;.. .. ),

Against this criticism it has heen emphasized, partinl-

U'ONOMIC l!lU)RY 71,

lady hy "a"t Furopean economists. tlLlt the "ocio­economic content of commodity productinn has :t1snchanged fundamentally on the hasis of the changed(socialist) relations of production and also thaI.in connection with this. the categoric, and lawsrelated to socialist commodity production have changed(Ulhricht. 1%7: Breuer. 1971). A final assessment ofthis debate is at the moment not possihle. the more soas Ihe foundations and presuppositions of this dis­cussion arc just as little clarified as the rel;,tion be­tween qualitative and quantitativc analysis in the politi­cal economy of socialism and. even more generally. therelations hetweeneconomic theory and Marxist econom­ICS.

The concrete needs of planning socialist economies(sec PIANNIN(i) and thc related prohlems of ellicientallocation of n:"ourn:". the latter heing largely in­dependent of the concretc economic order. hoth led tosophisticated mathematical theory of the optimal func­tioning of a socialist economy. The theory pro\'es tobe at least formally very similar to modem Westerneconomic theory. especially with regard to the methodsapplied (linear. non-linear and dynamic programming.input-output analysis. econometric and statistical tech­niques. etc.). but pa rtly also with respect to the resultsohtained. In some fields even the Soviet economistswere leading (cf. Kantorovich. M2thematical MethodsofOrganizing and Planning Production..... IlJ3lJ), whilein many other fields of praxiology the techniques andresults ofhourgeois economic theory were adoptcd insome cases without much reflection (cL NemchiIH)v.cd., I'rill1cl!('Ilic /J1lI/c///lI/iki .. . ). The consequence ofthis is a peculiar theoretical ambiguity especially amongthose economists who have a good knowledge ofMarxian theory and also of the modem methods inmathematical economics: the jump from political econ­omy to "pure" model theory is hardly dialectical.and mostly hoth kind of theories remain unrelated toeach other. The argument often mentione-o in thisconnection that such categories of economics as utility.scarcity and etliciency gain their operational significanceonly in socialism. and should therefore he used as abasis for a theory of socialist economy. docs not appearto he sullicient. Serious contributions to the methodo­logical and material clarification of the connectionnetween model analysis and general political economywere furnished hy Wlodzimierz Brus (1961). V.VNovozhilov (llJ67) and Oscar Lange (Po/ifica/I:·cII//IIIIII'.

... ). who in this respect matched up to Marxian stand­ards.

In thc current discussion on the theory of optimalfunctioning of the socialist economy, the question ofthe applicahility and concretization of the categoryof social utility for the detennination of planningprices and planning quantities plays a considerahlerole (cf. Shatalin. Nekotorye prohlemy teorii optimal ­nogo funktsionirovaniia sotsialisticheskoi ekonollliki.. . ,). The traditional widespread misconception of theMarxian Iahour theory of value as an immediate

cdndation-schclllc for socialism alllon~ Soviet l'COIll>­

mists (and the resulting attempts at the comput;l!lt III

of socially necessary lahour time) is increasingly rec­ogni/cd. Already in his {JOI'('/'1\' of Philosophl' (IH47)~1ar.x had pointed out that "in a future society. inwhich class antagonism will have ceased ... the time ofproduction devotL't1 to dillcrent articles will he deter­Illinl'tl hy the degree of their social utility" (Mar.<.Thc PIII'('r/1" 0( l'hi/o,\o/Ihl" .. , " p. (3). The assumptionof an exchange of equivalent labour-values is for Mar.<only an analytical abstraction for his model of COI11­

petiti\c capitalism. an ahstract equilihrium analysis forwhich the use-value of commodities (i.e. their ahilityto satisfy human needs) is explicitly presupposed (cf.ClI/lifll/. ' ... vol. I. chap. I). In his AI1/i-Diihrillg Engelselucidates the significance of usc-value for socialism bystating that the distrihution of socially necessary lah011rhas to he hrought ahout hy the systcmatic comrarisonof the "useful clrccts of the various articles of con­sumption ... with one another and with the quantitiesof labour required for their production" (Engels. AII/i­1>iihring.. , .. p.427). Hence also in the Marxist view aconsideration of usc-value (or. in hourgeois economicterms. demand) hccomes necessary for planning.

D. Comparative Aspects

I. E('()\:()\II('S AND II>I O!.(J(iY

I\. prohlem dccisive for the determination of lontentand method ol'economics is the prohlem of ideology. orof objectivity of economic theory. This does not onlyrefer to the possihility or impossihility of "objective"'knowledge in social science. but also to the place ofsocial science in relation to natural science and to thearts. and to the place of economic theory within socialscience. While there is a high degree of consensus ahoutmethods and the fields of research of economic theoryhetween Marxist and hourgeois economists. funda­mental divergencies with respect to ideology and. inconnection with this. in the central aspects and laws ofeconomics exist.

Almost all non-Marxist definitions of ideology in thiscontext arc hased on the explicit or implicit postulate ofpure or ohjective economics as a real (not only theoreti­cal) alternative to ideological (and therefore presumably"unscientific"') conceptions. in spite of all ditferenccsin detail within the various schools of thought. Thereproach of ideology (q. v.) refers here to the false com­prehension of ohjective reality and/or to internal con­tradictions within the theoretical model. According toHerhert Giersch ideologies arc " ... ideals whose inter­nal consistency cannot be maintained. since they arehased on a distortt;d representation of the socio-econom­ic reality. This representation of reality may' he oh­solete or h;lsed on naive prejudices or certain prelCr­ences of philosophy ol'lifc or definite interests"' (Giersch .Allgc/1/cil/c Wir'scll(~/tsp(}li/ik, ... , Bd 1. p. 135).

1·.('ON01\1IC III !'.ORY

A n10rc cxact and systcmatic though hardly opera­tional concept of ideology is hcld hy the nco-positivisticline of thought in cconomic theory. Following MaxWeber. this line of thought maintains a scparation ofscientific propositions and theorics into positive prop­ositions or theories. which describe or analyse ohjectivereality. and into normative (evaluating) propositions ortheories. Positive scientific propositions are char­acterized by the possibility of empirical examinationat least in principle. in particular of their falsi­fication in tcrms of Popper's criterion of falsifiahility.The confusion of positive and normative propositions isconsequently interpreted as an ideology: "Certaintheoretical approaches which promise the realization ofdesired goals arc preferred, hecomc dogmas on real­world events. become idcoloKics . .. "' (Richter. Methodo­logic aus del' Sicht des Wirtschaftsthcoretikers, ....p.259).

In the case of an ideology we arc dealing with aspecific mixture of value systcm and positivc theory,But even if one accepts such a distinction hctwcenpositive and normative statcments (theories) as mean­ingful and possihle. a decisive dilliculty arises in socialscience and particularly in economics from the stronglyrestricted validity or applicability of the theories: theyarc formulated under the assumption of a constancyof the environmental conditions (the so-called ccterisparihus proviso) whose control is gencrally not (or assome bOll rgeois social scien tists hope: not yet) en su red,Therefore the criterion of falsifiahility can only applyin a very limited sense: strictly speaking, there arc no"positive theories" at all. If in addition to this thereprevails a tendency to immunize the thcories againstempirical testing by a restrictive choice of underlyingassumptions (as in some branches of economic theory.particularly the theory of consumer hehaviour). thenthe propositions that arc claimed to he positive cornenear to ideological interpretations of reality even ac­cording to the neo-positivist position. Hans Alhert (Ocrlogische Charakter del' theoretischen Nationalokono­mie. , , ,) illuminates this ideological tendency of immu­nization in economic theory by the illustrative conceptof "Model Platonism",

Marx. on the othcr hand. hases his economic analysison a completely din"crent conccpt of science and ide­ology. His critique of hourgeois science and society isnot determined by the problem of distinguishing be­tween "positive" and "normative" or "ohjective"' and"ideological"' statements, but hy that of elahorating thesocio-economic basis of the ruling ideas and ideologiesin hourgeois society and by their systematic criticismfrom the point of view of scientific socialism. The con­nection hetween the hasic socio-economic st ructurcsand the ideologics hased on them are nevertheless seenas mutual but still essentially determined hI' the socio­economic hasis, in spite of some misleading simplifyingpropositions in the Commullist A!alli(('.\(O (11'41') and inhis COl1o';hut;ol1 to the Cr;liqllc of' Pohtical L'COIlO/ll.\'

(1859), Contrary to a widely held view. the relationship

hetwccn "hasis" and "superstructurc"' is not dccisivefor Marx's critique of ideology, hut rather the de­mystification of the social relations in hourgeois so­ciety which are ohscured hy commodity fetishism intheory as well as in practicc. Only from this pointof view can thc content and result of Marx's analysis ofvalue in ClJp;1lJ1 be fullv understood.

According to the Marxist view of knowledge (q.v.)ideas can only be interprctcd in the frame of and inconnection with thclr social and historical back­ground and an ahsolute, generally valid knowledge ab­stracted from socio-economic reality is impossible: forthis reason the criterion of scientific knowledge is socialpractice: "Social life is essentially pf'(/ctiml. All mys­teries which mislead theory to mysticism fInd theirrational solution in human practice and in the com­prehension of this practicc"' (Theses on Feuerbach. InMarx. Engels S ~V, vol. 2. p, 405 l-

In terms of this general meaning of ideas dependingon underlying socio-economic conditions the scientiticsocialism founded by Marx and Engels is. of course,an ideology itself according to the Marxist under­standing of knowledge. hut it claims to be the firstideology of a majority which is still exploited in capi­talism against earlier forms of ideology of ruling mi­norities which are hased on and serve to conceal thespecific conditions ofdomination. In this sense scientificsocialism claims to be historically progressive andtherefore scientific: "The proletariat is ahle to producea correct. scientific consciousness of its position andits historical task. 'Scientific socialism is not anideology in the traditional sense. Rather. the socialistideology is a scientifically founded ideology" (Hahn.Marxismus u, Ideologic, ... , p.IIRX).

Important representatives of traditional economictheory have also dealt with the Llucstio:l of how far eco­nomics is ideologically, hiased hy a systematic distortionin the construction of its concepts, in the selectionof problems to be dealt with and in the choice of theapplied methods resulting from the general tendency toaccept the respectively given conditions without questionand to take them as a standard of possible knowl­edge, Schumpeter attempt.) to solve this problemof ideology by distinguishing methodologically orien­tated "economic analysis", with its claim of generalvalidity. from the historical forms of economic thoughtinfluenced by the prevailing ideologies. such as politicaleconomy. His History (~r Econolllic Anafl'sis (1954) istherefore devoted to the demonstration of a long tra­dition of positive methodology in the history ofeconom­ic theory; in so doing he tries to extract from the worksof important economists their lasting contrihution toeconomic analysis. Schumpeter's monograph furnishesillustrative examples of the I'cllllil'l' independence ofeconomic science from the prevailing histprical andsocial conditions, not dissimilar to Marx's Thcorics (~I

Surplus Va/ul'.A similar position has heen maintained by Gunnar

Myrdal in the flrst edition of his Thc Political Ell'mcnt

1'('()!\()\lIC 111I()I~Y 75

ill Ih£' f)nc!0I'II/I'l/f ot Flol/ollli(' nll'on (19J(I). "'herl'hc on tht' onc 1l;lIld l'\1'\hL',;1 1;lrtcL' nUl1lher ur hld\knvaluations hut on tht' othn hand hclieves that ;I! In theelimination or SUdl idcolu~ical e1cments in t'CtlnOI1lICtheory therc will rcmain a positive system or faets andfunctional rdationships as a ha~;c for value-judgmentswhich have to he introducl'tl separately. In Iatcr editionsof this houk and in his' '0/1Il' ill 5;ocio/ Th('orl' 1)95X)

Myrdal claims that such a separation is not yctpractically possihk, since

"l:Vl:ry dWICl: 1\)1' facts for the construction of nHH.kJ..1 111­

volves valuations. One does nt't escape valuatiolls hy rl:'trlCllllgresearch to the disc(l\LTY of 'fach' The VLTy allempt, s\) prc­vakilI 111 recent year'i, It' aVlIld valuatiolls hy JOlllg re'iearchthat is simply faclual and wlthoul use for practical \H pollllL,lIefforts Illvolves in Ihelf a valuatloll. ' .. The full sta Ie 111<.'11 1 ofa probkm, includlllg the deciSion of scope. direcllon. hypo­Ihesls. principles of c1,ls,dicallon, and Ihe definition of alltcrms used, rcndn, expliCit th.: valuations neCC'i"H) 111 bl'l­

finding research" (T\tyrdal. 1'(////1' ill Socia/ Thl'on .. .. p. I ~s).

From this standpoint Myrdal criticizes systcmaticallythe positivist and nco-positivist conception of the proh­lem of value-judgments. Similar to him, Joan Rohinsonconsiders economic theory to he "pa rlly a vehicle forthe rulin~ ideology or each period as well as pa rtly amethod flr scien tdic investiga tion" (/~-£'ol/olllic Phi/lI.v­

opln . .... p. I). Althou~h she recognizes. too, the im­possihility or a practical scparation hetween i<.kologyand economics. she considers it to he the economist'stask to distinguish as sharply as possihlc ideology frompositive knowledge. Myrdal's and Robinson's conceptof ideology comes in some respects closc to the Ma rxianconception, but is espccially distinguished rrom it intwo points: they IISC a gre<l! number of equ<lll~' decisivcfactors for explaining: ideological bias (hesides the socialrelations of production. also cultural. religious or suh­jcctive factors). and. with respect to ideology. the~

place Marxism on the same level as bourgeois theoric ....A significant cont ribution to the clarification flr thcconcept of ideology in this context has been furnishedrecently by Ronald Meek (Ecollomics (//1(1 !d('%gr . .. ).

II. FCON()\I(C M ODU.S

The qucstion or fCasihlc l<:.)I"ms and methods of COI1­

structing economil' models is closely connected with theproblems of ideology and \;t1ue-judgment. The model asa simplifled theoretical representation of reality can becomprehended as a generalized fonn of measuring. asa mapping of things and of relations of things onto alogical structure. The underlying process of ahstractioncan he understood as a generalized form of mea"uring.as a one-to-one mapping preserving the rclatifln ofthings (d 1• d2.. ·.) to clements of the model (d'i' d'2'... )and ofrclations (1'1.1'2 •... ) to relations ofa mathe­matical theory (I" I' 1"2.... ). Relations are therebythought or suh.lel'lS or thc Cartesian product 01 twoscts: these relations ;lre further spccifled hyadditionalconditions (e.g. as equiv.lIcnt relations or as functions).This general concept of model (or theory) is applicable

l)(lth to l'vlarxist eC\Hlol1lics ;ll1d economic theory: y~t itdoc'i Iwt ,ulliee for a complete l'haracten/ation orCCOIH'I1lIC theones or of the process or rorming theories.The dl'cisi\c ditkrences hetween Marxist and hourge(liseconomil'" arc to be sem in the qucstion or evaluation'and selcL"lion of essential elements and relations ofrcality to l'L'lllWmics and. related to thi". the questionor applicahilit)' or the dialectical method (sec DIALlT­

IICS and DIAII("T\CAI. MAITRIAI.IS\I).

rhe relation hetwecn dialectics and traditional logicshould IWt hc regarded as an antagonistic contradic­tion. The Marxi;1Il dialectical method contains on thecont ra ry the \'Iassical principles or logical derivation asessential (but not exclusive) precondition. or. as Engelsst;IIl.~"'. a" "llIl1Itlllg casc". Therefore. the controversyproper retCrs to the question of whether it is allo\'''l'ti tosupplement or to rclativize the forms of logical deduc­tion hy dialectical procedure orientated to the respec­tive contents (ef. Bloch . .\/Ihj<,kf-Ohj('kl... .).

The traditional logical dcduction is characterized bythe;l ppl ica tipn oran ex plana tion (nfl/m/(III.I) which con­taill~ the specilie initial conditions and the generalhypothesis of the model. to the phenomenon to he ex­plaincd (np/illI(///(IIiIII). A scientifk explanation iscbimcd whell the np/al/olls is empirically suhstantialand hencc principally ohservahle and examinahlc hye,pniment. Such scientiflc derivations arc also called"meaningful theorems" (Samuelson. Fconflmic Theoryand Mathematics.... ) in economics. According to KarlPopper a theory is t~dsiflahle. ir its hypotheses exclude~crtain phenomena. The rct"utation ofa proposition Ollt­\\e1tch" its empirical verification. hecause cpnformityhet\\'eell theoretical derivations in economics (andmore generally in social sciences) and certainphenomena of the real \vorld docs not imply its (orrcct­ncs~. hut only its possihlc compatibility with realityand I'm this reason. therct"ore. it docs not necessarilye'clude other theoretical hypotheses. To attain es­sential ahstractions or the complex real economic andsoci;t! interrelations is theref~He to he seen as thelkcisive proh1cm of the construction ofeconomic modelsand theories: this means that the definitions. functionalrelations and other simplifications or the real worldwhich enter into the model must help to reach a hetterundersta nd ing of the complex rca lity hy means or modelanalysis and its application to empirical prohlemsthrough suhsequently increasing concreteness. With re­gard to this. there docs not exist any difTerence hetweenMarxist and hourgcois economics. Hence. ahstractionsand models of economic reality arc only seeminglyarhitrary. they are not an end in itself.

Mar' illustrates in his GrIIl/drilll' (Rohent\vurf) ofIS57 5X the purpose of economic modcl-huilding: theamorphous immediate experience of economic reality isfirst of all "a chaotic conception of the whole"(Marx. K "111(' (il'lllldr/,sc. Ed.: D. McLellan. Ldn.N. Y.. 197\. p. .'4). Thus. to hegin with. "the completeconception passes into an ahstract defInition": then"the ahstract definitions lead to the reproduction of the

7(, rCONOMIC THEORY

concrete subject in the course of reasoning" (thid..p 141'.).

Only then can reality be comprehended asa structured"aggregate ofmany determinations and relations" (ihid..p.14). Against this commonly accepted purpose ofknowledge through economic models. there arise es­sential ditllculties. On thc side or techniques andmethods. a significant difficulty comists in compro­mising between operationality and calculability ofmodels (with the resultant danger of oversimplification)and the claim to include as many aspects of realityas possible in the model (with the danger of over­complication and of constructing intractable models):"It follows that the Scientist. likc thc Pil!!rim. must\\'cml a straight and narrow path between the Pitf~llisofOversimplification and thc Morass 01 Overcomplica­tion" (Bellman. Dynamic ProRramminR. .... p. X). Sincetherefore for technical reasons reality can never betotally comprehended in an adequate model, certainmodifications (i. e. f~lctors of influence at first nottaken into account) must subsequently be introduced.if one wishes to apply the model to phenomena of thereal world. But the substantial difriculty arising fromthis lies in the fact that the possibility of furtherconcretion is innuenced by the foml and the extent ofthe initial abstraction (models). For this reason theactual purpose of the investigation must be consideredalready when setting up the models; the model building ishence also determined by the questions under considera­tion. Obviously a single model docs not allow allphenomena of the real world to he explained. evenif it is subsequently modified. Therefore variousmethods and models may and must coexist in variousfields and/or levels of abstraction. For this reasonMarxist economics and traditional economic theory arcnot to be regarded as mutually contradictory.

A false consequence from this scientifIC structure ofeconomics would be to presume an arbitrary pluralismof models and methods. More important is to work outthe respective sphere of validity for single methods andmodels and. above all. their interrelations. Because ofits lower level of abstraction. bourgeois economics canbe fully applied and interpreted only in the frameworkof a general abstract theory of social development. Onthe other hand. the general theory Marxist economicsneeds concretion and modification by special theories ofsocial subsystems (as. in part. economic theory docs).If one accepts nco-positivist tem1inology. the relationbetween Marxian and bourgeois economics can bescen-- in a very simplified manner essentially as therelation between a meta-theory of the conditions ofconstructing economic theories and of social develop­ment on the one hand and a special theory ofeconomical usc of scarce means on the other. Thisglobal characterization docs not mean that economictheory is a necessary concretion of Marxist theory northat the latter becomcs a nccessary mcta-theory ofeconomic theory. The classification of economic modelswith regard to models of explanation. verifIcation and

decision-making l1a~ only secondary importance. be­causc these models do not differ in their structurebut only in the different types of data entering intothe basic construction of the model (cf. Angem1ann.IlIdlis/rie!!e P!(JIIlillglrcchlllillR.. .. ). Whereasexplanatorymodels arc characterized by a purely logical derivationfrom model hypotheses for the purpose of a rationalexplanation of real processes. verificatory models usehistorical (statistical) data for testing theoretical hypo­theses and deductions which may be obtained. forexample. from explanatory models. Finally. decision­making models are directly orientated to a concreteapplication in business management or economicplanning and forecasting. "If one looks at the con­nection of models of explanation. models of verificationand models of decision-making it becomes evident thatthey form a cohen:nt complex of investigation. Thecausal-logical connection of these three types of modelsresults from the regular succession of steps immanentin the scientific process of thinking: cognition. demon­stration. application" (Angennann. 01'. cit .. p. IR). Dis­tinguishing model types according to the methodsapplied (e.g. ideal model. programming model. etc.)or according to their fonn of representation (e. g. modelof analogy. eidetical model) can cover only somesuperficial features and cannot provide a deeper ex­planation. unlike the classification mentioned above.

III. VALUF-]qDGMFNTS AND PRAXIOLOGY

The postulate of freedom from value-judgmcnt putfoward by Max Weber (The Meaning of "EthicalNeutrality" in Sociology and Economics.... ; also "Ob­jectivity" in Social Science and Social Policy.... ) hasbeen central to the theoretical and ideological discus­sion hetween Marxist and hourgeois economists. andalso within the different schools of traditional econom­ic theory. Its operational meaning consists in thedemand for a strict separation between scientificanalysis and description of social phenomena and. onthe other hand. their evaluation derived from extra­scientific criteria. Taken only as a methodological warn­ing against subjectivist. unfounded and even unfound­able opinions put forward as scientific ones. this postu­late surely would have been generally accepted. TheMarxist and partly also non-Marxist criticism of thisrefers rather to two related positivist consequencesof the postulate: the explicit or implicit negation ofthe social and historical limitations of social theories(problems of ideology; sec above: D. I) and the reduc­tion of economic research to the relations betweenmeans and ends (praxiology). The separation betweenpositive (~"value-free") and normative (_c "evalu­ating") theories based on this postulate of freedomfrom value-judgments served in economic theory tonarrow the field of research dO\vn to the aspect ofrationality between means and ends and with this toreduce economic theory instrumentally to the inquiry

ECONOMIC TIIJ:ORY 77

into the relationship between (ohjectively given) meansand (evaluating and therefore in principle arbitrarilyintroduceahlc) ends. While positive economic, ac­cording to this conception was supposed to scr\C thedescription and fonnalilation of possible rl'lationsbetween means and ends, the main task for nonnativeeconomics (especially welfare economics) was to supplyor to select the !!oals to be aimed at (cf. Boulding, 1952:Mishan, 1%0).

The ideological character of this scemingly "valuc­free" position is hest demonstrated by Gunnar Myrdalin his "lIIIlC ill Social Jllcorr. The connection between"freedom from value-judgments", and the instnllnen­talization of economic theory derived from it, and thepractical needs of hourgeois society is not only scenin the concrete results of the praxiological theories(such as operations research, application of economictheories for economic policy) but also in the presup­posed conception of economic knowledge: This way ofthinking tends to take the variables of the social andeconomic system in classical and especially Marxianeconomics as externally given data (parameters) fromthe marginal sphere of economic research, or even to putthem entirely outside, which implies the negation of so­siety as a problem of economic theory. In contrast (andin direct opposition) to Marx's position, which statesthat rational economic abstraction is possible only byconsideration of social and historical factors (sec above:B, II 2), it is here maintained that value-neutral sciencedemands abstraction from these 1~lctors. The basic sep­<nation of objective relations between means and endsfrom the evaluation of goals is thereby exaggerated,as Myrdal points out. Even the selection of feasiblemeans -- and not only the choice of ends~- pre­supposes a value-judgment. In addition, unintended oreven unwanted side-elrects may arise by applying themodels or theories to reality, so that different meanscannot be regarded as equivalent; thus an evaluation ofthe complementary effects becomes necessary too. Inprinciple, the acceptance of a narrow instrumental con­ception of economic, which has recently also becomcmanifest in the political economy of socialism (sccabove: B. IV 2), means essentially at least the implicitacceptance of the concretely or theoretically givensituation and hence a hidden value-judgment (e.g. forthe S(({(US qUrI).

These justified arguments against the instrumentalmisconception of economic theory are not directedagainst the principle of rationality pCI' xc, but againstits partial and unrctlccted application. Praxiology as ageneral sciencc of action determines the theory andpractice not only of bourgeois economics but also ofSOCialist economics (cL Lange, Znaczcnie prakseologii" .).

Marx himsclf. whose central issue was not the ques­tions of rationality but the attempt "to lay bare theeconomic law of motion of modem society" (Marx.Capital, ... , vol. L p.IO), recognized the significanceof rationality for the development of productive forces

in capitalism and socialism and specilied it in hisprinciple of "economy of time":

"The less timc society requires in order to produce wheat,callk.l.'lc. I hI.' more limc II gallls for other forms of production,malcnalor Intelleclual As With a single IIldlvldualthe univer­sality of II'; development. its enjoymenl and its activity dependson Sa\ ing limc. In the linal analysis. all forms of economics canhe n:duCl'lJ III an ccnnnrnics of lime. Llke\~lSe. snell'lv mustdIVide up Its tllne purposcfully III order 10 achieve a productionsuited to its gcncralnceds: jusl as the individual has to dividehis time in order to acquire, in SUItable proportions, theknowledge he necds or to fulfil Ihe various requiremenls of hisactIvity.

On the ha'il'i of community production, the fir'it economiclaw thlls remallls the economy of time, and the methodicaldistrihution of working limc helween the various hranches ofprodlicll111l; and this law hccomes indecd of much greaterIInportal1l:e" (Marx, K. rhe Gnmdris,\{'. Ed.: D. McLellan.Ldn, N. Y., 1971. p.75f.).

The emphasis on the principle of rationality in eco­nomic theory hy means of increasing formalization andmathelllatilation and the consequently increased com­putability and applicahility of economic theory as weUas its prevalence in the practice of capitalist and so­cialist societies should nevertheless not obscure the last­ing antagonism between capitalism and socialism, be­tween hourgeois economics and Marxist theory:

. these general or common fealures discoveroo by com·panson conslllllie something very complex, whose constituentclements have difTcrenl destmations.... The conditions whichgenerally govcm production musl he differentiated in orderthat the essential points of difference be nor losl Slghl of invIew of the general uniformity., . The failure to remember Ihisone fact is the "ource of all Ihe wisdom of modern econo­mist" who are trying \0 prow the eternal nature and harmonyof eXisting social conditions" (Marx. Introduction 10 IheCritique of Political Economy, ... , p. 269).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albert. H. Der logischc Charakter der theoretischen Nalio­na\()konoll1lc. In Jhr Nal.-Okon. SllltiS!, 171, 1959: 1-13. ~

Id, Der ll10derne Mcthodenslreit 1I. die Grenzcn des Metho­denpluralismu". In Jh. Sozialwiss. 13. 1962, Nr 2: 143-69.-0

'

Id,. ed. Thcorie II. Realiliit, Ausgewahltc Aulsalze zur Wisscn­schafts1chrc der Sozialwi"scnschaft. Tubingcn, 1964. -- Id. DasWerturleilsproblern im Lichte dcr logischcn Analysc. In Z.KCI. SllIfIISII'isl. 112, 1956: 410- 39, . - Altvaler, E. Ralionali­slerung u. Demokratisierung. In An~lIlI/cII18. 1966, Nr 4: 265­XI}. Angermann, A. 1/IIIIIItriel/c Pla/lIlIlKsrecl/lll/ng. Bd I:Entschelollng,modclle. Frankfurt M .. 1963. Arrow, K ..and Hahn. F. H. (;c/ll'm/llJlII{lt'lilil"l' AIl(/ll'sis. San Francisco,Calif. Fd!Jlburgh, 1971. Id. Mathematical Models in theSocial Sciences. In D. I.erner and II. D. La"swell. eds. The PolinScie/lccs: RC'("('/11 /)e\C,loplI/cllts ill Scopc lIlld Afetlwd. Stanford.Calif.. Ill." I : 129 -54. Baran, P.A., and Sweezy. P.M.Afollopoh CliP ita I : 1111 1-:.1.1/11' Oil Ihc A mcrica/l Eco/lolllic aile/Social Ore/a, N. Y .. 1966. Id., and Sweezy, P. M. A Noll'on the Theory of Imperialism. In :\fo/lt/rlr R. 17, 1966:15-31. Id. Thc Poli(;((/I ECO/IO/Ill o( Growlh. N. Y., 1957.

Baronc. E. Pri/lc;pi di eco/lolII;/I politica. 2 vol. Roma,I \}OX 01}. Behrens, F. ZUIll Problem der Ausnutzungokonomischer (iesetzc in der Ohergangsperiode. In Wirtsclr.­Will. 5. 1957. Sondcrhefl 3: 105 40. Hellmann, R. E.!hlla/llic I'mgrrllllmillK. Princeton, N . .I., 1957. Bettel·helm. C. Cil/nil (;co/lOllliql/c c'l /rll"/I/CI dc prol'ric/(;. Paris.1970. Hhaduri. A. On the Signlticance of Recent Contro­versies in Capital Thcory; a Marxian View. In Fum. J. 79,1969: 532-39. 0.- Blaug, M. Ecol/omic Theon' in Relrospecl.2nd ed. Homewood, III., 1968. 1st ed. 1962.- Bloch, E. SlIh­jl'kl-Ohjck,. Erhiuterungcn zu Hegel. Erw, Ausg. FrankfUrL'M., 1962. lsI cd. Bln[OI. 1951. Bohm von Bawerk (VOll

Hohm-Bawerk), E. Karl Marx and Ihe C/(JI'e tif His System.

7>-\ I'C()N()~1IC I'll FOR't

Ed 1'. t-.1. Swcoy. Ncw cd. NY. I'J4'J '" cd (lIl1. IINXCi,·r.· /UIll Ah~l:hlul3 tk\ Mar,x\cl1l'l1 S\ 'll'lll'. In .....'11111111 (\­

JI'I/HIi{/lllich(' Arht'iII'II. I'c\tganc fur K;lfl "111<.". Bin. I IN6'87 ~05, B()r1~. 1/. D, /ur ro1il"chl'J1 (Jkol1onll<.' del' BOle:·hunge:n IWI\ch<.'1l Fnlwlcklung\h!l1dcrn u. wl·qltChcll Illdu\lfle:·ge\clhcl1aflcn. In Flil'dl'l/\lorse/lflllg. Fd I'. K rlPlwlHlorlr. cdKaln. 19(,X: 320 51. hr\l in: AlgI/I//(,/1I 8. 1'1(,(" 173 ::'02Rouldlng. K. E. Welf"re h;ol1ol11'l:~, In Ill, Ilak\. cd .fSIIf\'('1 01 ('l/lIll'llIpOraf'\' /:col/ol/lio. Vol. 2. l!ol11t\\ood. III.,1952: 1 34 Breucr. v\'. Warenprodukllon u SO/lall\nlll\.In .....0::. I'olil;/.. 3. 1971, Nr 13: I 14 Ill''''. W. and I a\kl, KThc Law of Valuc and Ill,' Problem of Allocation in Soclali~I1l,

In Oil 1'01i1iuJ! /:101101//\ aliI! FCOIIPIIIC'{/(1 \. f-"ay\ III !lonolltof O\kar l.ange:. Repr Warvawa, Il)(,l): 4<; 5'1, hI cd (hford. IlJ05. Id.O roli prawa war!o"li w go\podarce \Oqd'

liqyuncj. In l:"f..oIlOI/l;SliI l'i,'i(i. no. 5: 71 95. With h1g.Summary: On lhc Role of Ihe Law of Value III Soual1\1Economy: J 57 5X. Id. ()glillll' {"oh!nlll' lilll/';C;OIlOIl'IIII;(/gosl'll(larki \{IcjaIiH,I'c::III';, V"ar~/;lwa. IlJhl. 1·1'.' {'roMI'II/I·.\1(/;//I;r{/II.\ "1I/IIIICliolllll'/lII'11I dl' (/;,111111/11;, '111' Wlilll' 1\1 n,. 19(,X

Buk!larin. N.1. Fktllltl/llika (lI,/t'''hfldllllt:o {,,',;odll. ('11. I:Oh,IIclla;tlll'tI/iill /l1I11I/(1/'ll/a/I;OIl/lIlI-:" 1""1 \,'\ III. M .. I()~O [TheEconomlc\ of Ihe Transitional Period. Parr I' Gennal '1 l1<:oryof I'roc<:\s of Tran\formation.1 Id. IlIJpl'ua!i::1I/ ; 1111/""(11('11;1'kClpi/llla. l itd, M .. 192X 1st cd. 192~. [Illlpniali'ml and Accu­mulalion of Capital. I Carl. E. L. Tmif': tI/, III r;chl'.I\I' dl's prill­n's l't dl' 1t'1I1'.\ hClH. ('I til'S //IO\'I'IIS s;IIII,It·.1 1'llIlIllIrl'!.1 {'Ollr .\' (lar­11'11;/.3 vol. Paris. 1722 2.1 ('ollrnnl. ;\ . .'\. Rl'clll'/'(I"'lllIr11'.\ prillcipl'.1 /l/arl/l:llwlil{III'1 dl' III Ih,:"/II' d"1 1"/1111'1\,'1. NnllV.cd. Pans. 19JX. lsI ed, IX.'X. Ikhr<:u. (i. Ihl'(IfT til "111111':{/II .-1.\;OllJtllil· A/lal\',~is IIf !:'COlltlIlIlC !:'·I{I/;lihri((/II. N. Y. 19.'i9.Dohh. M. H. 011 FcollolI/;c lhl'olT 111/11 .<"·oc;tllillll. ColkUnlpapers. Ldn. N. Y.. 1955. Id. l'oliriclIl FI (1110/111 IlIIeI CII{,iIOI­i,fll/. 51h imp. Ldn, 1<J50. 1st l'l! 1')J7. Id . .<"·lIli,·1 I:"COIIOIII;CDnelllplI/l'lIl sillcl' 1917. olh cd N. Y .. 19(,7. lsI cd. Ldn,1948. Dohia\. P. Zur Struktur dc\ Mar\\chell SY\lcms. InWl'!IIl'irw-!,. Alllii\' /IJ.J.2. 197(): 279 .'0.1. nomaI'. E.n.Capital E\pansion. Hal" of (irllwth and t-:rnplo~menl. InFUIIJOII/I'lriCl/ N. 19411. tw.2: 137 47. Id, I:'I,III\'S ;11 IllcThl'o/T o/I-.'I'o/((/I/Iic (;roH'III, N. Y.. 1957. Dorfman. R..el al. l,il/l'lIr l'rogra"/I/I;II): 01/(/ I-."/OIlOlll;C .-11111/1'1;,\. N. Y .. To­ronto. Ldn. 195K. Dupuit. J. (k la mC~lIre de: l'ulillt0 dcstravau\ publICS. In id. DI' (/(Iil/ll; 1'1 de la 1I/1'\l(/'('. Torino.J9D: £'7·9£,. First in: A. (l01ll1 1'1'11//\\/:1'1 2. IX44, no.8: 29fl5, EC(/lloll/ic i\lclI/II 11/11 1 S(lI;ill 1:'1It!\. LI\IIIS till l'olillclIl

FIOII(l!'lil'.l. Ed.: R. L. Ikilhwne:r. Fngk\\{lod ('I db. N. J..11)61). Fdgewllrth. F. Y. ,""IIIItI'/llaliu"/'1 Idill I: 1111 /-'S.lCIl /III

"'I' ApI' IiclI I iOI/ o/,\/rtlhCIIIIII;I.\ IIJ Ihl' ,\fOrtt! S(;I'I/(('\. Idn. I I'IH I.Fngds. I:. ,·llJIi-f)iihr;IIX: /l1T1 !.'ugel/ O,iltr;IIl?\ Rl'I'tlllI/i/lll;1I

.\·/'iI'I/CI'. 2nded. M .. 1959. It!. Olltlll1e\pfa ('lIliqu\,pfl'ollticaiEconol11Y. In K. Marx. ,....(Ol/IJ/I/;( 1I1It! I'lti!o.\o{'lticlil ,\111/111­,ICI'i(lI,I' oj 18.j.J. r-.t.. 1901: 17~2()9. Id. Socialism: Ulopianand Scientllic. In ,\far.\. I:'I/gcll .'l IJ'. \'012: 116 <;5. Erlich.A. The Stll'il'lllItllI.l!riali::(/I;1J1I l>chl/Il'. I'iN 19:!8. Camhridgl'.Mass .. 1960. Eueken. W. Ihl' (;I'IIIIII/(Igl'l/ dl'l S((lilll/(/l­

iikol/IJlllil'. 8, Aun. Bin. 1965. lsI cu. kna. 1940. Id. (11'/111"­

1111::(' dl'f' Wir/.\c!w/Isl'olir;k. 4. Aull. Tlibinl;en. hinch. 196H.lsi cd. Bern. Tiib1l1gen. 1952. I'rank, A. (i. ('(Jl'il((1i1ll1 I/lldUllderdl'l'l'lo{Jl/u'lI/ ill rtJIill AllltTi(a. N. Y.. I.dn. !')h7.Frey. B. S. Die akllllomlsche Theorl\' der I'tll,tlk odeI' die ncucPOlilisl:he Okonol11ie. In 7. gl'.l . .\'11/11/1\1';1'1', Il0. I<J70: I 23,

Friedman. M. The Rok of Mllnl'lar\' I'olic\'. In AIIII'I.

/;'COII, R. 58, 19ML I 17. (jiifgcn. (i .. 'ed. (;I;(//dl(/).:I'II tlcrWiu,clt((/Is(lolilik. Killn. )9(,6. (jicr\ch. II. Allgl'lIIl'illc

Wirrl-cltll!llpolilik. Bli I: ('rundlagen. Wil.·\bad\,l1. )9(-,0.(jillman. J. M, lll(' 1-((1I;lIg RI/II' oj Pro/J/: .\f((/'-"·.I I.cll\' ((lIti11.1 SigllillctlllcC Itl TH'l'lIlil'lh-( CI/I/O\ C(J{'/IIIIi.lIlI. N. Y.. I').'ii'l.Ldn. 19<;7. lillsscn. 11.11. F/l/lI'idlllllg tit'! (;('lel::1' til'SlIIel/lcltlichCll Vakchl'.1 II. tit'/' tllII'I1/1I Ifie.\lcl/(/1'1I Rl'gl'll/ Iii/'II/CIIIChfichcs 1/1/1/1/('111. Braunsch\\L·lg. I ii54. CirO\\/llann. II.DI/s Akklllllllllll;OIlS- /I. ZII,\IIlIllIIl'flh,.IICll.lgl'.ICI:: dl's kl/{Jill/lil'li­schcl/ SrI' 11'111.\. Ncudruck. Frankfurt M .. 1<J67. lsI cd, Lpz,.IY2\1. Id ..1\1111'.\. dic klwlilchc' ,\,llio/la/iik('//OJIlie II. tillS1'111hll'/l1 dl'l' /JI'/lill/lik. Frankfurt :\1 .. \\'Ie:n. 19(19. Ciu\'vara.F. ('Ollr/;I iO/l('.l {IIII'{I 1'1 r/I'\(//I'ollll 1'((1/IC;II/;CII lalllllll/(l'l';OI//II.

Montl'\idco. 1966. IIahcrl11as. .I /11/ I. i1p tI, "1'1' S(I::ia/llil­S/'11.lc!/(//II'II. Malenallcn. I'rankfurt \1.. 1970. 11'11111. r.lIis/(Iri,\chl'l' ,HI/I(,J'illli.lIJ/II.1 II. 11/111.1';.\1;\( hI' .\'o::i%gil', Sludlcn

III melho(hllogi\d,ell II. crkel\ntlll\th<:OI<:tl\lhen Cirundbgcndel' SO/IIl!P!'.1 (hl'n Ipr~dllJn~ BlnIOJ. IIJ/lX Id. Marx,,·11111S u. Idcl'i"~ll·. In /)/\ch,' / 1'11;1", fl, 1')(,4. Nr 10: 117192 Hafh-_'n. A, II ,·1 (;llIell' 10 A,Tlln 1':. Y .. 1953. Id,K eYI1\'\ a nL! I he (jeneral '1 h," )r~ III R FIII/I. Sill"". 28,194(,: IX~ 1'17 Harcourt. (j. C. Some: (',ullhrrdge Conlro­\<:r<;ics in the Theory of Capllal. In J. Fum. 1.;1. 7. 19(,9:3fl9 405. llarrod. R F An F~~ay in DynamIC Thcory. In1:'1'1111. J, 49. IlJ39: 14 ~.t Id. TOII'anl\ II DI'//II1I/ic ECOIl(lIll­in: .1.,'1/11/1' Rt'I'I'/l1 /)1'1'1'1(1(111/011\ o!l:'coJ/llfl/ic Thl'lIn' IIl1d Tire;,AI'f,llI'ul;o/l III /'0111;1'1'. Ldn. ILJ-1X, Iknnllkc. P.. and NUllIn­g,·r. II. (J. UI>('/'/I',l:IIII,I;1'1I :111' /I'i,." /I/lg.\ II'I·i.II' "/'.I H'erlgcwI:c.I;/1 r/I'I' T,(//ls/i'l'fl/illiol/l{I,'"io",'. 2 Tk. Ilcltklbcrg. 197172,MS. IIlckel. R. /ur i\ktlwde: de:r poll(l\chCJ1 ()konolllle.In Karl Marx: /J1/.1 AI/pilal Bd J Bill, 1\171: ')02 .11. Hd­fe:rd 111 g. R. Bt/hm-Bawerk's Marx-Kril,k In M. Adler and R.Hlltcrding. <:d\ . .l\!1/r\-'sItIl!iI'I/. Bd I. W,en. IlJ04: 101.Id. DUI /-itrotr::kl/{I;ItII. Lllle Stuole llh<:r die Jung\te Fntwlck·lung dl's Kapilall\11111\. Ncuau\gah,·. !-rankfUrf M .. 1\loX. lsico. WICI1. IlJ(O. IIlldg,klll. T. /'1I{1Ir!l/r /'Illilic(// 1:'((111111111'

Repr N. Y .• 1966. hI cd I.dn. lX27. lIofmann. W. DasElcnd del' Natl(maliikonoll1lc. In (;I'.II,II\'chu/l. RaIl! II. Poli·I;k.[:d.: I{, MaliS. Neuwied. 196X: I(,l !il. Id, Ih: Ideologl­slerung da t)kononllschcn Thl'OfIe:. In SIII";III/l gl'l/. 23. )970:II X9 ·\lh. Horowitz. D .. cd, '\/1/1.\ al/t! ,\fllclcm Fcol/oIII;o.Ldn. J96X. Horvat. B. TIIII'I//,t!\ 1/ TII('("T 0/ Plal/llcd Ecol/(I-1111'. Bcograd. 1964. Serh. -eraa I.' r." (1/11 Ill/I/';' (J 11'0/';ia 1'11111.11-.1'{,r;l'/'ctll', Beograd, 196 J, .IC\()I1\. W. S. Tllc PrillCipll',1 orSC;I'I/CC. N. Y .. 19.'iX. ht cd. ~ vo! Ldn. 1874. Id. /he7hl'01Y oll'lIlili(al FeollOlIlI·. 4th <:d. I.dn. 1'131. 1st cd. N. Y..IX71. Jochimscn. R.. and Knohe:L II .. cd\. (;CRClll/wltllt.,\fI'IIIIJlII'/! clcr '\'aJ;IIIlII/(i/dl//(/l/Iil'. Killn. 1971. Kaleekl. M.1-.',1.\01'.\ ill Ihc Tlil'on' o( I:'col/(I//lic I-IIICI/lllliolls. Ldn. 1'1.W.1'01.: 1'1'I11>a Ico/'i; kOIlIIlJ/ld/lIT. \Var\l.awa. IlJJ3. Kanloro­vich. L. V. Mathcmatical Melhods of Org'lni/ing and PlanningProduct ion. In '\!IIIlII,l?I'!II/'111 Sci. fl. 1'160. no. 4: 3116 422. Russ.:;\!IIICllllllic!tI'sk;c IIICIOlli or):I/II;::lIl.Ii; i {,lal/i/,ol'lIlIic pm;::lod­11m. L.. 19.W. Kemp. T. lltl'orin 01 IlIIpl'r;lIlislII. I.dn ..1967. Keynes. J. M. nit' (;1'/(1'/,111 Thl'lIJ'l tI(I:'III{llollIIl'llI.IIIIC/'I'SI all'/ ;\/011('1. Re:pr I.dn. NY.. 1965. I sl cd. I (l.1hId. ·f 1'1'1'01;11' Oil I'mhllhili/l'. New cd. Ldn. 1<J50. ht cd.1921. Kqnl.'\. J.N. Till' ..... Ctl{l(' (/1Ie! ,\II'II/(/d 0/ /'o/iI;I'lJILmJ/olIll, 4th cd. N.Y. )95:'. 1\1 cd. Lon. N.Y., IX91.Krili/.;, tier {,olili.lchl'll O/'tJllIJlllic' 111'1111'. 100 Jahr<: "Kapil'll".R<:fcrate u. Disk u~\il'nen ... Fd.: \\'. Fuchncr and A. Sehlllidt.Frankfurt M .. Wlel1. )1)61'. Klihnc. K. Marx im Lichtedel' Illodcl'll<.'n \V"·l\ehafl\wi\\e:I1\lhaft. In K. Marx: OktiJ/o­III;Slhl' Schri/lel/. Hr\g.: K, Kithne:. SIutlgarl. 1\170: X\'IIILXXXVII. I.,Ulcasler. K. Malhl'/IIIII/cul /;"CIIIIOII/;(\'. N, Y..Ldn. 196X. Lange:. O. R. ~lar\ial1 1:.I:0I10111ICS and Ml)dernFconOnll( TheIHY. In R. FCII/(, ,'II/Id. 2. 1\1.14.15: IX9 201.Id, l\1ar.\IS111 and Bourgeois Fconomlcs, In V. B, Singh. cd,Oil Polili(1I1 Fcol/ol/I\'. Bombay. N. Y .. ILJ£'4. Id .. and Tay­lor. F.I\1. O/( II", /;'col/lllllic 7h,'OIT 0/ S(I({(/I;slJ/. MlIll1eapolis.Minn .. 194X. lsI cd. 19JX. Id. l'olilical1:'('(I//(//(I1·. I: (jeneralProhlcnh. Oxford. N. Y .. 1963. Pol. cd.: 1:'/';01111/(1;11 {'(Ilil\(::III1,2 l. 2. wyd. Warvav.a, 1901 6!i. 1st cd. 1<J5966. Id .. ed.I'rohlclIls O/l'lIllIic(/1 FCIIIIOIl/I" 0/ Socillli.\lli. New Iklhl. lLJ62.Pol.: Zagadllil'lI;lI c"ollolllii /,oli/l c::I//'i\(/c;IIIi::IJI/I. \Varv;Jw;J.1958. Id. 71ldOCl11e prabcologii db ekonomti polll~C1nej.

In ,\.lall'/,ill/l· {'rtI/...ll'olog/c::I/C, 110.20. 1965: 13211. Ind. Fng.summary: Till' /rl/f/Ol'/IIIIU' (I!I,,.a.\"iolf}~nlilr/'olil;cal Lcol/o/tn·,'25 26. Lenin. V, I. Impenali\l11. lhe: Highe:sl Slag\, of Capl­lalism. In reI/iII CW, vol. 22: IX5 304. Lennllef. W. W.Thc Signilicancc of MarXian Economics for I'r<:~el1l-J)ay

Fconomic Thcory. In ,·III/(,/,. L(OIl. R .. PIlPCI'.I' alld Pf'I/«'l't1illgs28. ]lnR: '9. Llcfmalln-Ked. E. Fillliihl'lll/g ;1/ eI;e f'olifi­Iclte (jl"IIIIII/III' (rcihurl! Hr .. Bawl. \\'Ie:I1. 1964, Lowc. A.\11 I )pbb dlld \I<1I"X' Tl1eory llf Value. In Mot!. Quar!ah I.1').\1'. ,\<> 3. 2X51)(). Luxl'mburg. R. The Accu/llulal;ol/ ofCapilli!. N. Y .. 1964. Ldn. 190J.I\lcd. New Havcn.Conn,. Lun.1\151. Ge:r.: D;c Ak/.;llIlllIllllioll dC,1 A'apillll.l. Hln. 191 J. Maka­rov. V. L. Modcli oplimal'nogo rosla ckonomiki, In Ekofl. ma­ICIllI/I./JIl'lm/r5. 1961.}: 56\1 81. [ModclsofOptimurn EconomicCirowlh.] :\,1altI1l1\. T. R. /'r;lI('i/'/1'.I 01 /'olilica! 1:(01/11111\'COI/\id"I','eI lI'illi a l'il'lI' 10 7'h1';" /'ro(l;col .If/pIiCalifllll. Hcpr.of 2nd e:d. N. Y .. 1964. lsI cd. Ldn. IH20. Mandel. F.Trail/; 11'/;COflOlllil' /l/ani.I/t'. Pans. J 9£'2, Marshall. A. Prifl-

ECONOM ISt\1 7lJ

dfl!es of FCOI/OlIl/t I. 2 \ pi 91h I:J. Llin. N. Y .. Il)~, I 1'1 I:d.I \01 1~\')O. 1\1<11\. K. (lI{'iIU!, a CriticlI! A//a!' ,i, 0/ ('U/'/­whit ProdllCl/ol/. 3 vpl M .. li)57 61. IJ. A ("lItrihlllinll10 tl/(' ('rl/;'Ille 0/ l'n!lliclI! Fcol/olI/.I. 2nd rev. I:d [ Lin .. 1\:. '1' ..IlJ04 Nl:w I:d .. wilh inlrod. hy M. Dl)ho. Ldn. 'i. Y .. 1970.

Id .. and I·ngel-;. F. IIII' (,'1'/'1//11/1 Idl'ologl'. M. 1964.Id. Introductinn 10 Ihl: Critique of Political h;onol11\. InId. A {'ol/luhll({1I1I {II {h,' {ritilii/(' o/Po!itilol J:coI/IJlln. 2nd rn.cd. N. ·Y .. Ldn. 1904: 264 312. Id .. and Engds. F. 1\lanl­fcsto of the Communist Parly. In Mar.\. Enge!s S W. \01. I:33 ·65.· Id. MarglJ1al Notes 10 Ihl: Programme of thl: GermanWorhrs' Party. Ihid.. vol. 2: IH·37..~ Id. The POlen, orPhi//I.lop!r,. N. Y .. 1963. Id. The(lries (I( Surp!lIs l·lI!IIt'.SI:!cctions. N. Y.. 1952 Ldn. 1951. Id. Wage Lahour andCapilal. In AlII/'\. Fllgt'!.1 SW. vol. I: 79· 105. Ill. \Vagl:'\.Price and Profit Ihit!. \01. I: 3lJH447. Meek. R.I .. I:'colln/ll­in IIl/d Idt'oltl~1 Ollrl ()tha I:'.Utl,\'.l; Stlldit's ill Ih,' J)elclop­mell/ o/I:'cn//ol//ic 7'hought. Llln. 1967. Menger. C. Pri//ci{'!el(If E,O//OllliCl. Firsl. General Pari. (i!cneoe. III.. )950. ('a.:CirUlu/.Illl::e der Vn!k,.l'Il'irt.lchafi.l!ehrt'. Wien. IH71. -- Ill. I)/(Ih­!ellls of'l:'coJ/olllio a//d Socio!o1:l. Ed.: L. Schneider. Urhana.III .. 1963. GI:r.: Ulltcrsllc!l/Il1gefl iiher die Afelhode dl'/" !·;o::ia!·wisseflscha/ft'fl II. d('/' po/itischell Oek,/lfloll/ie insne.w//der('. Lpl. ..18H3. Mill. J. S. rHOII' Oil SOllie Ufl.I'l'fI!('tI Qlleslio//.I 0/Po!iliClJ! I:'coflO//I\·. Repr. of 2nd Ldn I:d. N, Y .. 196H. Repr. oflsi cd. Ldn. 194H. I sl cd. I H44. Id. Principlcs of Polilica!ECOlIOIlII. 2 vol. Rq1f. of 71h cd. Ldn. 1936. I st cd. 1R4H.Id. A Sl.Item or Logic, Ratiocinatil'c and Indllctil'('. 2 vol. Ne\\,cd. Ld;l. N.Y .. 1956. 1st cd. Ldn. IR43. Mishan. F.J.A Survey of Welfare h:ollomies. 1939-·1959. In Fcoll. 1. 70.1960: 197 265. MyrdaL (i. Ohil'Cfil'itl, ill Slicia! Rest'tlI'C h.N. Y .. 1969. Id. Thl' Po/itiCllI E!l'lllellt i/1 Ihc f)('\'t'!IIP-me/1t of FC(l//lIlI/ic 7'hI'OI'l'. Camhridge. Mass .. 1954. Ldn.1l)5~. S\\Td.: 1·,'ll'I/.I/..(/(' och {lo/ilik, i /1l/lili/1(/It-k,(//101Iliell.Siockhoim. 1930. Id. VI/!IIC i// Socia! Th('orl'. Ldn. N. Y ..195H. Nemchinov. V. S.Fkonoll/ilw-llIl/tl'lllIItichl'.Ik,il' //Il'tnlhi IIIlItlt'!i. 2. izd. M .. 196'i. Isl cd. 1962. (Econornico-Malh~­matical Methods and Models.). - Id .. cd. Primel/c/1il' II/I/tl'­maliki I' ekol/lllllidl('.lkikh iss/cdol'llIliiakh. 3 t. M .. 1959 65.Eng. Irans. of v('1. I: The Use of Alathcmatic\' i/1 FCIII/O/1/ics ..Cambridge. Mass .. 1965. Edinburgh. 1964. ---- Novozhilov.V. V. PI'Oh/ell/l' i::llll'I'clliil/ ::arl'at i rezul'tatov pri optllnal'tlOlIIfI!anirom//ii. M .. 1967. {Problems of Measuring Expl:nditureand Results in OptImal Planning.). ~- Nutzinger. II. (i. Wirt­schaftslhl:orie aus der Siehl der plliitischen Okonol11lc. InSllIdilim gl'lI. 24. (lH!: 977·9H. Palloix. C. I {"II/olI/iemO/ldia!e capita!il/c. 2 I. Paris. 1971. Parelo, V. C(l1I1'.\ I[I;CII-1/0lllic po!ilil/lIl'. 2 vol. Lausanne. I H96--99. -- Id. Ma/1l1a!e dieell/1oll/ia plilitica. Ristampa. Roma. 1965. 1st cd. Milano.1906. Pelry. F. Der so::iale Ceha!t drr Marxsch('n Wcrl­Iheoril' . .lena. 1916. Popper. K. R. The Lo~ic 01' Sciel/tificDiscIIl'el"l'. l.dn. N. Y .. 1959. Ger.: LOl(ik drr For.lt!lIIng. ZurErkennlnislheorie tkr rnodcrnen Naturwissenschaften. Wien.1935. Prei'\er. E. IVationall)kol/omil' hl'l/le. Munchen. 1959.9th cd. 1970. Preobrazhenskii. E. A. The /\'('\\' LCO/1l1l11ics.Oxford. 1965. Russ.: NOl'I/ia ekonomika. Opyt leorel ieheskogoanaliza sovetskogo kho7.iaistva. M .. 1926. -- Quesnay, F.Tah!I'I/II I:C(I/1l1l11il/IIC al'l'c son exp!icatiofl. Versailles. 1758. Eng.in: Mirabc~llI. V. de RiqUdti. Fra/1cois Quesnar: The I:"W/10­mica! Tahle. N. Y .. 196H. Ricardo. D. 0/1 Ihe Prillcip!l's ofPo!itica!/:·c/IIWIIl.I· tI/1d Taxation. Rl:pr. Harmondsworth. 1971.lsI cd. Ldn. IR17. Richter. R. Mdhodologic aus del' Siehldes Wirlschaftslhcorl:t ikers. In Wellll'irtsclt. Archil' 95. 1965:242··61. .-. Robbins. L. C. An Essa.l· on the Na/llr(' a//tl 5;iK­I/i/i('([/I('(' of Em//olllic ScinlCl'. Ldn. 1932. _. Robinson. J. TheACClIlI/u!lItiO/1 of Capi((/!. Homewood. Ill.. Ldn. 1956. Id.Economic Phi!o.wplll·. Chicago. III.. 1963. lsI I:d. 1962. Id.A// Essay all /Hania//I:'collomics. Ldn. 1942. 2nd cd. Ldn. N. Y ..1966. Id. Marx and Keynes. In Id. Collected !:"t'OIWIII­ie Pllpers. Rl:pr. Oxford. 1960: 13345. lSi cd. 1951.Samuelson. P. i\. Economic Theory and Mathl:l11atics. InAmer. I:'CO//. R .. Fapel'.1 alld Proceedillgs 42. 1952. no.2: 5666. . Id. Ecof/omics: WI If/lrodueton Ana!ysis. 81h cd. N. Y ..Toronto. Ldn. 1970. 1st I:d. N. Y .. 1948. -- Id. Economistsand thl: H islory of Ideas. In ,111/1'1'. EC/I//. R. 52. 1962. no. 1 :118. Id. IOIl/ulllliolls o//:'co!/olllic A//a!nil. Reflr. N.Y ..1965. lsI cd. Camoridge. Mass .• 1947. Say. .1. B A Tr('l/tilcolIPo/itica! ECO//01II1': or. Tltc Produniof/. Distrinutioll of/d COII-

IlInll'I/OII,'/IJ'I'II!th N.Y .. 1964. Fr.' Trailcl[h·onoll/il'f';ililiqlle.Oil. S/II/plt' 1:"1)(1litiOIl ill' III 1IIllllihl' d01l1 .11' (or1llellt. se tiisrri·hll"//I. 1'1 't' ,1I1/10IIIIIIOl( !n richl'\lI'I. 2 vol. n. cd. Paris. 1R41.1st I:d. 11<03. Sdlllwikr. (i. Volkswlrls~haft. \'olk~wirl­

schaflsklHI: u. -methode. In flaf/lhnirtrrhllch tier Staats­lli.I\I·1/.Iclta(t. Bd 8. 3. A uf! . .lena. 1911: 426 ·50 J. _.- Schnei­der. E. DII/iillrllllg ill die Wirtscha/istheorie. TI 4: AII.IKe­l\'lih/tl' h'lIpile! del' C('.I'chichle tier JVirtschajist!reorie. BdI 2..\ull. Tlihlngl:n. 1905. lst cd. 1962. Schum peter..1. A. ('liP /til iiI III . .':;ocia/i.l1ll. alld f)elllocrtln·. 3rd cd. N. Y..1950. lsI cd. 1942. Id. HiJfon o{l:'cof/oll/ic Allalnis. N. Y..1954. .. Id. [)tH W('UII II. da Jlauf'tinha!t der thl'oretischen\'/llioIlOlii/"o/lOlll;". 2. Aufl. BIn. 1970. lSi I:d. Lpl.. 1908. -.Sl:nllH. N. \lv'. All Out/ine of tire ,<-;cicf/ce o( Po/iticlil ECO/lOIIII'.New cd. I.dn. 1936. lsI cd. 1836. 5halalll1, S. S. Nekoloryeprohkmy tl:orii oplimalnogo funktsionirovaniia sOlsialtsti­chcskoi ekonolllik I. In FlwII. lIIall'lIIlIl. 1II('/(I,h' 6. 1970: 835­4R. ISol11l: I'rohkms of the Theory of Ihe Opli.;'al Funclioningof thl: Soclalisl Fconomy.) _. Sherman. H. Thl: Marxist Theoryof Valuc RI:\lSlted. In Scief/ce ,S-oc. 34. 1970: 25792.Smith. i\. An l//lll/in if/to Ihl' Nalure lIf/d Cau.Il'.l· o( Ihe Well!thof Salillf/s. 2 vol. Homewood. III.. 1963. I sl cd. Ldn. 1776.Sflulha. N. :"Ocill/iSI Maf/llge/l/ef/t af/d P!Il/If/i/l/{; Tllpics i/l('oillpl/rtuin' :';O(/lI!ill ECO//Olllic.l. Bloomington. Ind .. Ldn.1971. SrafTa. P. ProdllClioll of ('IIIIIII/Ill/iti('s hr AfetJII.I III'(·/lI/llI/oditll'.I; Prl'!lIdl' 10 a Critique o( !:'col/olllic Theon'. Cam­bridge. \9<,0. Strotmann. P .. compo Lllr A:ritik der Sowil'l­I,kv//olllie. Fine Disku'ision marxislischer Okonoml:n des WI:­slens iioer dil: Winschaflsrcform in den Lindern OSlellropa,\By C. Beltl'lheil11l:t al. BIn. 1969. Sweay. P. M. The Theon'o! ('af/itll!i.11 [){'\'clllf/lllelll; Prillcipll'.1 o( Marxiall Po!itica!b·OIlOIl/I. Rl:pr. N. Y.. 1964. lSi cd. 1942. Thompson. W.All 1111111110" i//IO the Pril/ciple.l' o( Ihl' [)i.llrihlllioll or WI'allh/l/O.lt ('ollr!l/uil'l' to 11/111/011 flapp ill 1'.1'.1'. R.epr. N. Y .. 196R. lsIcd. Ldn. I R24. Topilsch. E .. cd. LOKik der So:ialwi.ul'lI­.IChll//I'II. BIn. 1965. Ulorichl. W. Die BI'r!I'IIf1I/l~ de.\' Wer­k,n .. [)I/.I A'1If/ltllr' 1'011 Karl Marx fiir die Schal/IIIII( tit'.\' l'IIf­\\'ickcll('// !!1'1('!l.lchafi/ichl'lI Sr,\(ell/.1 ties SOZill!i.I/l/II.I ill del' DDRII. dell Kalllp( Regel/ tia.l .l'fallll"lII()!1opo/istische fI('rrscllll!f.I.H­.11('//1 ill Jl"l'.I'tr!l'lIt.ICh/IlI1d. Bin (OJ. 1967. - - Volmar. G. Deri'iollerte SOl.ialisti'\che Slaal. In In. SO::.-Wi.l'.I. So::.-Po/il. I. I.IR79: 54·74. von Kemp'\ki . .I. Handlung. MaXll111: u.SlluatlOn. Zur logischen Analyse dl:r malhematischen Win­schaftslheorie. In Stlldillll/ Kell. 7. 1954: 60 6R. von Thunen.J. H. Ikr i.l'o/il'rfe 's'({/I/t ill BI'::iehllllg (Jill' 1-1I11t1l1'irtschaff II.Sl/lio//a/(iko//o/l/ie, 3 Bdl'. Neudruck. Jena. 1930. 1st cd. Bd I.H hg. 1826. Bd 2 in 2 Tdcn. Rostock. 1H50. Bd 3. I R63.von Wl:ll'iachr. C. C. SI('(/('" Sratc Capira! 71,con'. BIn. N. Y .•1971. \Valras, L. E!e/l/ellt.l' of Pllr(' FCIIIWlllic.l', or Theon'of Socia! Wel/!th. Repr. N. Y .. 1969. 1<;1 cd Ldn. 1954. Fr.:(:11;11/1'111.1 lr<;CIIIIO/l/il' PO!itil/1I1' pllre. Oil TII/;oril' de la ric!l<'.ueIOliall'. 2 I. l.au'ianne. IH74. Ward. B. N. The Socia!iHLC/l//o/JI.\' , 1/ ,\11/(11 01 ()rglllll::al!o/lIlI.-l!lel'/lll/l\l'.I. N. Y .. 1967.

Wd1l:r. M. The Ml:aning of .. Ethical Nl:lItralily" in SOCI­ology and Economics. In id. i\fllx W('her 1111 the AfeI110do !og I'

o! the SlIl'ia! Sciellce.l. Gkncol:. Ill.. 1949: 1-47: (,cr.' IkrSII1J1 dn "Wl:rlfrl:iheit'· der sOl.iologischcn u. 6konomischl:nWissl:nschafll:n. In 1.lIgos 7.1917: 40 R8. - Id. "Objectlvity"In Social ScienCl: and Social Polley. In id. Ma\' W('hl'r Oil t!le\l1'lhor!o!o!!)' of t!ll' Socia! Scil'llce.l. Glencoe. III .. 1949: 49112. Ger.: Die "Objeklivitat" sozialwissenschaftlichcr u. so­zialpolitischer Frkennlnis. In Archil' Soz.- Wil·s. Soz.-Po/i/. 19,1904: 22 87. Wolf'\leltl:r. E .. and NUlzll1ga. H. G. Un('/'­!egllllgl'lI ::lIr Mar\'.I'c!Ie!1 6k,0Ilo/l/il'. Heidelberg. 1970. MS.

llal1s-Got~rri('dNut:il1R£'r