The theory of Marxism is: briefly and clearly about the main provisions. Economic schools and their development Marxism as an economic theory briefly

Marxism is a philosophical, political and economic doctrine developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels with the aim of transforming society and moving it to a higher stage of its development. Marxism is not just an ideology or a unique view of the world, it is an entire scientifically based doctrine that explains the development of society and the possibility of transition to a new model of social relations - communism. The popularity of this teaching today is very insignificant, but its followers actually predetermined the history of the entire twentieth century. Marxism will be briefly described in this article.

Karl Marx as the founder of the doctrine

The author of the theory, which followers would call Marxism, was the German journalist, economist and philosopher Karl Heinrich Marx. The public figure was born in the city of Trier in 1818, had brilliant abilities in science, and in 1841 he graduated from the University of Berlin, so to speak, as an external student. At the age of 23 he defended his doctoral dissertation on ancient philosophy. He was fond of the teachings of the classic German philosophy G. Hegel, who was an idealist. Over time, Marx took a materialist position, but borrowed the philosophical method of dialectics from Hegel. Thus, the theory of Marxism emerged, the provisions of which were initially spelled out in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848). The following works belong to the pen of this brilliant thinker and public figure: “Capital”, “German Ideology”, “Criticism of the Gotha Program”, “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts”. Karl Marx died on March 14, 1883 in London.

Sources of Marxism

Marxism is a holistic system of views on all social processes. But this system can be divided conditionally and its main components, as well as sources, can be determined. The famous Russian revolutionary Marxist V.I. Lenin in one of his works identified three sources on which the ideas of Marxism are based.

English political economy

Marx's teaching is primarily a teaching about economic theory. Therefore, the source of this teaching is economic ideas that precede Marxism, including English political economy. Adam Smith and David Rickard laid the foundation for modern political economy by creating the labor theory of value. K. Marx took the works of English economists as the basis for his theory.

German classical philosophy

In the idealistic dialectic of Georg Hegel, Marx saw the basis of his philosophical thinking. But after reading the works of Ludwig Feuerbach, the philosopher begins to understand that the idealistic position is very shaky and is not even correct. Marx develops a new method, combining the philosophy of materialism and dialectics. As he himself stated, “We have turned Hegel’s dialectic upside down...”.

Utopian socialist thought

Long before the advent of Marxism in Europe, there were many utopian teachings. Their representatives tried to find a way out of the current situation of total social injustice. Among the more famous utopian socialists are Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Henri Saint-Simon and others. Karl Marx critically analyzed their works and brought socialist thought from the utopian stage to the scientific stage.

Thus, the comprehensiveness of the theory gave it enormous popularity. The development of Marxism was determined by a broad labor movement during the birth of political ideology.

Basic postulates of the theory of Karl Marx

In Marxism it is almost impossible to single out an idea that could be considered fundamental. Marxism is a multifaceted, clearly structured teaching.

Dialectical materialism

The entire teaching of Marxism is built on the philosophical position of materialism, the main position of which is the assertion that matter in relation to consciousness is primary. Consciousness is just the property of organized matter to reflect reality. But consciousness as such is not matter, it only reflects it and also changes it.

Materialistic dialectics considers the world around us as a whole, where absolutely all phenomena and objects are interconnected. Everything in this world is constantly in constant motion and change, birth and death.

The theory of Marxism understands by dialectics the general laws and development of nature, human thinking and society.

Fundamental to the philosophy of Marxism (dialectical materialism) are three dialectical laws: the unity and struggle of opposites, the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, and the negation of negation.

Materialistic understanding of history

Marxism views man not as something separate, but as a social being, as a product of social relations and connections. All types of human activity create a person only insofar as he himself creates them.

The principles of historical materialism are as follows:

the primacy of material life over cultural life;
production relations are fundamental in any society;
the entire history of human society is the history of the struggle of classes (that is, some social groups with others);
recognition that history is a constantly moving process of changing socio-economic formations (primitive, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist).

In every socio-economic formation there is a class of oppressors and a class of the oppressed. These antagonistic classes are defined by their relation to the means of production (land - under feudalism, plants and factories - under capitalism). Under the capitalist formation, there is a bourgeois class and a class of wage workers (proletariat). Classes are in constant struggle and, as Marx envisioned, the proletariat must overthrow the exploiters and establish its own dictatorship. As a result, a new just society and the next social formation should arise - communism. It should be noted that Marxism is not always communism; many use this teaching not for political, but for scientific purposes.

Political economy of Marxism

The political economy of Marxism studies historical, successive modes of social production, or the system of production relations. All ideas of Marxism, and political economy is no exception, are built on a dialectical understanding of the nature of society.

The central theme of K. Marx's criticism in the field of economics was the theme of the capitalist mode of production. Marx dedicated his main work, Capital, to this concept and its study. In the work, he revealed the basic laws of the existence of modern society and criticized them as inhumane and exploitative. It is quite difficult to challenge this position of Marx to this day. Many people are forced to work day after day in order not to die of hunger, while others live from this work and practically do not work themselves.

We have examined Marxism briefly, and many of its provisions have been ignored. But it is already quite clear that this is not only not an empty and utopian doctrine, but a whole scientific method for solving many social contradictions. Marxism is not the dogma of Soviet textbooks, it is a living, dynamically developing thought. In the West and in Russia, many intellectuals adhere to the teachings of Karl Marx and his many successors.

. In addition to his achievements in economic theory, Marx made many discoveries in the fields of history, sociology, philosophy, and political science.Marx's works made a huge contribution to the development of all world science. But the main difficulty was and is the excessive ideologicalization of the economic teachings of Marxism, especially in Russia and throughout the post-Soviet space. One got the impression that for Soviet economists it was a matter of honor to refute any theory that, in their opinion, did not correspond to the spirit and letter of Marxism. But they did not have enough strength to offer their own, corresponding to all the canons of Marxism. Therefore, research into the teachings of Marx, the separation of science from ideology, and the creation of a positive image of Marx as a scientist who made an invaluable contribution to the development of all social sciences are acquiring great importance in Russia right now.

From all of the above, it is obvious that it is extremely difficult to study this topic impartially. They deified Marx and tried to throw mud at him, but nothing came of either one or the other. Intense debate continues in the press to this day. On the one hand, Marx is accused of bias and erroneous methods, on the other hand, modern economists, based on Marx’s teachings, are developing new ways of calculating the cost of labor, modifying the labor theory of value, and models of capital movement. It is important to separate Marx, the classical economist, from his “Leninized” image.

The purpose of this work is to analyze the main categories and laws of Marx’s economic teachings, identify their weaknesses and suggest possible options for updating. The latter has not lost its relevance with the fall of the socialist system. Rather, on the contrary, Russian economists have at their disposal vast experience as Marxist researchers in solving certain issues, which can be reflected, with modern adjustments, on current problems. For example, the study on labor costs in paragraph 3.2. real work.

The main task is to consider all possible transformations of value, surplus value and capital. These are the most interesting and confusing points in Marxist economic teaching.

What today was for Marx is already history for us. For this reason, it is necessary to skip entire theories, to mention some phenomena, concepts, laws only in passing, since they relate more to the history of economics or the history of economic doctrines (manufactures and “home industry”, factory legislation, etc.) than to economic theory and practice. Or they can become the subject of a separate large study (theory of exchange, money). Although this does not in any way detract from their importance for economic thought as a whole.

In the chapter on this topic, Marx argues that it is labor power that is sold, not labor. “On the surface of bourgeois society, the worker’s wages are represented in the form of the price of labor,” a certain amount of money paid for a certain amount of labor. The cost of labor must be less than the newly created value, since it is not profitable for the capitalist to receive back only what was spent on acquiring labor power. In the market, everything happens as follows: labor power as a commodity is purchased at its full price, however, the value of the products obtained as a result of the use of labor power exceeds the latter’s own value. Exchange value is acquired and paid for, but use value is actually acquired.

Since wages are paid for a full working day, the very form of wages erases all traces of the division of the working day into necessary and surplus. All labor appears as paid. Capitalist relations rest on the transformation of labor power into goods and “give the value of labor power the form of the value of labor, wages.”

Both the value of a commodity and the value of labor power can only be expressed in exchange value. Just as the value of a commodity, expressed in money, turns into the price of a commodity, so the value of labor power, expressed in money, becomes its price. And wages are represented as the cost and price of labor.

With cooperation, many independent labor forces are united, and as a result a combined labor force is born, which the capitalist does not pay for. Cooperation changes the ratio of surplus value to the total capital advanced.

2.3 Transformation of surplus value into capital and capitalist accumulation

Everything discussed above refers to two phases of the movement of capital: 1) the transformation of a certain amount of money into means of production and labor; 2) the transformation of means of production into goods, the value of which exceeds the value of their components by the amount of surplus value. “Now let’s see how capital arises from surplus value.” Part of the surplus value goes to the maintenance of capitalists, and the other to additional capital. There is a replacement of parts of the previous capital in the process of reproduction. “Every social process of production, considered in constant connection and in the continuous flow of its renewal, is at the same time a process of reproduction.” Surplus value breaks down into capital and income. This is where the theory of abstinence is born: the capitalist provides his instruments of production to the worker (capital), instead of turning their value into his personal consumption (personal income). The more capital grows due to consistent accumulation, the more increases the amount of value that is divided into a consumption fund and an accumulation fund. Accumulation is reproduction on an expanded scale.

Marx already outlines his understanding of the main contradiction of capitalism, speaking of the complete separation of property at that stage of the transformation of capital, when additional capital is created, from labor, which has transformed the products of labor into goods.

The author introduces a new concept – the organic structure of capital. It is of great importance for understanding the accumulation of capital, changes in the combination of the main factors of production (capital and labor), and also for revealing the transformation of value into prices. It is necessary to introduce the concepts of capital structure by value and technical structure of capital. “The structure of capital by value expresses the ratio of the cost of the means of production, that is, constant capital, to the cost of labor power, variable capital.” The technical structure of capital “is determined by the relationship between the mass of the means of production used, on the one hand, and the amount of labor necessary for their use, on the other.” Marx called the organic structure of capital such a value structure of capital, which “is determined by its technical structure and reflects changes in the technical structure.” Organic composition expresses “the relationship between the technical composition of capital and the value structure. When they say that the organic structure of capital has changed, they mean that the value relationship of both parts of capital has changed due to a change in their technical structure.”

The value of goods in a capitalist society consists of a constant part of capital, a variable part and surplus value, but on the surface value appears as the sum of costs and profits. The costs of production do not include all the capital advanced, but only the costs of wages and those means of production that are completely consumed in the production process. The cost of tools is included in the costs in parts. On the one hand, costs mean the cost of spent elements of productive capital, and on the other hand, this category designates that part of the cost of a product that replaces the cost of spent elements of productive capital. They (costs) act as a factor in the formation of the cost of the product itself.

An addition to production costs on the surface of society is profit, which is an increase in the total capital advanced. In profit, there is a distortion of the essence of surplus value, which lies in the fact that profit appears as a result of the functioning of all capital; in relation to it, the difference between fixed and circulating capital disappears. “Just as value manifests itself only in exchange value, so surplus value manifests itself only in profit... Surplus value, presented as the result of the movement of all capital, is profit.” It is clear that deviations of profit from surplus value are possible, since profit is also affected by competition.

The rate of profit expresses the ratio of surplus value to the total capital advanced. The rate of profit manifests in a distorted form the rate of surplus value, and the latter can only manifest itself in the rate of profit. The distortion lies in the fact that in the rate of surplus value surplus value is presented as the result of the action of only variable capital, and in the rate of profit surplus value appears as the result of the action of all capital. Since changes in constant capital are possible over time, the rate of profit can change independently of the rate of surplus value. The rate of turnover of capital, the lengthening of the working day, the growth of labor productivity with the progress of technology affect the rate of profit as a converted rate of surplus value. For example, price changes “are an expression of actual fluctuations in value.” Fluctuations in value express fluctuations in labor productivity, which entails changes in the amount of surplus value, the rate of surplus value, and, consequently, in the rate of profit.

Along the way, Marx gives an answer to the question of the possibility of regulation under capitalism. “Although production needs regulation, it is undoubtedly not the capitalist class that is called upon to implement it in practice.”

The organic composition of capital varies by industry. Surplus value m per worker is the same everywhere, the capital-labor ratio (organic structure of capital) varies by industry, then the rate of profit will change in inverse proportion to fluctuations in the capital-labor ratio of one worker. Thus, if the relation m/v the same for all industries, and c/ v are different, then m/(c+ v ) will also vary from one industry to another. But competition equalizes the rate of profit for equal capital (this is discussed in the next paragraph), regardless of their structure. Having the same rate of return r and different capital structures q , we can't have the same meaning m. After all, “r ≡ m/(c+ v) ≡ σ /(q+1)”, where σ – rate of surplus value. If one ratio is unchanged, then the other two should not change. "Because q differs by industry, then it should also be differentσ . This means that a pure product with the same amount of labor embodied in it cannot be sold for the same amount of money; relative prices cannot correspond to relative labor values."

2.4 Conversion of profit into average profit. Profit rate. Breakdown of profit into interest and business income

Different capital structures with different turnover periods in different industries correspond to different rates of profit. This follows from the inequality of the rate of profit to the rate of surplus value. The free flow of labor and capital from one industry to another leads to “the distribution and redistribution of capital between different branches of production, the pumping of surplus value from one sphere of the economy to another - all this happens, of course, in the most intense competition.” Due to the fact that surplus value for an individual capital is transformed into profit, profit for different capitals turns into average profit. The value therefore turns into the price of production. Thus, we get: goods are sold not at cost, but at production price, that is, market prices fluctuate around production prices, and not around values.

A product has one price, which is formed on the market as a result of the actions of all buyers and all sellers. The center around which the market price fluctuates in a developed capitalist economy is the price of production. Only when prices deviate from the center does the mechanism of supply and demand begin to operate; “the specified center cannot be explained by the relationship between supply and demand.”

“Equality of profit on equal capital, or - which is the same thing - the average rate of profit, is the principle of capitalist production.”

When surplus value takes the form of profit, capital undergoes its third transformation (from the means of production and labor power acquired with some initial capital, products containing surplus value were obtained, and now this value is transformed into profit). Thus, “the sum of values equals the sum of prices, ... the total surplus product as an element of production is equal to the total profit as an element of price. If the values on both the input and output sides are appropriately transformed into prices, then we retain either the aggregate version of the labor theory of prices (the sum of values equals the sum of prices) or the aggregate version of the labor theory of profit (the total surplus value equals the total profit), but we cannot save both options at the same time.” This contradiction is a strong argument in favor of supporters of the non-labor theory of value in their dispute with supporters of the labor theory.

The rate of profit is equal to the rate of surplus value multiplied by the ratio of variable capital to total capital. The rate of profit can change independently of the rate of surplus value. This should lead to the fact that as capitalism develops, the rate of profit tends to fall. Because with the development of capitalism, constant capital increases and variable capital decreases relatively, therefore, the ratio of the latter to all capital changes. As capital grows, the amount of profit increases, but the rate of profit decreases. Both of these processes are two sides of the same process - the production of surplus value, which includes both accumulation and changes in the organic aging of capital. The same thing happens when the mass of goods increases and their value decreases. Profit per unit of goods falls, and the mass of profit increases.

This law is only a trend due to a number of factors: an increase in the degree of exploitation, a decrease in wages below the cost of labor, a reduction in the cost of elements of constant capital, relative overpopulation, foreign trade, an increase in share capital. Some factors are broken down into smaller causes.

From the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall follows the objective limit of the capitalist mode of production, its historically determined character. An ever-increasing surplus capital with an ever-increasing surplus population is the most striking expression of the aggravated contradiction between the productive forces and capital.

“Industrial capitalists cede part of their surplus value to traders. But this concession occurs in the order of purchase and sale of goods produced in industry,” this leads to a change in the prices of goods. The separation of commodity capital into commodity-trading capital lies in the fact that 1) the metamorphosis of commodity capital T` - D` turns into an independent circuit, into D - T - D`; 2) from the entire class of capitalists, a special group stands out, which makes the transformation of commodity capital into money its specialty. This is due to the fact that the merchant reduces circulation costs, the capital required for circulation, and the circulation time due to the circulation of several capitals. But capital in circulation produces neither value nor surplus value. Trade value cannot be anything other than a part of the surplus value created in production. Trading capital both reduces and increases the rate of profit. From this we can derive a more precise definition of the price of production: “the actual price of production is equal to production costs plus industrial profit, plus trading profit.” Distribution costs are divided into net distribution costs, storage costs and transport costs. Merchant capital is more concentrated, “as a result of this, both the capital advanced for the purchase of goods and all parts of distribution costs decrease, and the rate of capital turnover increases.” The profit on merchant capital is therefore greater than the profit on equal industrial capital.

Trading capital participates in the average profit equation. The rate of trading profit is the same as the rate of industrial profit. The faster the capital turns over, the less part of the trading profit is added to the price of the individual product. Since there are public prices that do not depend on the merchant, by increasing the rate of turnover he thereby puts himself in more favorable conditions compared to the average.

Another type of capital is monetary capital. The money-merchant capitalist spends all his capital on circulation costs. He does not undergo any metamorphoses. He also receives profit, not interest, on a par with industrial and commodity-commercial capitalists. Although it is not productive, it is necessary and useful: without it, the capitalist would have to advance capital to carry out the following operations: storing money, carrying out accounting and bookkeeping operations, collection, mutual repayment of debts and many others.

Interest-bearing capital is only a derivative form of profit-bearing capital. The money capitalist gives his money for a certain period, and at the end of this period he receives it back with a pre-agreed increment. In the movement of loan capital D - D (transfer of money to the borrower) and in D` - D` (return of money to the lender), money directly functions as capital. In D–D, the borrower receives capital in cash. While the borrower is using money capital, the lender is deprived of the opportunity to receive an average profit from it at a certain time. Consequently, money is alienated as capital. Thus, a loan is the alienation of additional use value. Hence, the payment for the use of money capital - interest - is part of the average profit that is obtained as a result of the realization of the additional use value of the money lent. The economic basis of interest is that money lent on the basis of capitalist production can generate profit. Based on the downward trend in the average rate of profit, the interest rate for the use of money capital also decreases. The decisive factor is the state of the money market, which reflects the general state of the industrial cycle. But in a given country at a given time, interest is a more or less fixed value.

Interest is that part of the profit which the industrial capitalist pays to the money capitalist. Thus, profit is divided into business income and interest. Business income, which is the real profit of a merchant and industrialist, depends on interest; it is a surplus over interest. Interest acts as a result of ownership. The money capitalist receives it independently of the circulation of capital, therefore interest appears to exist even before the beginning of the circulation of industrial capital. In percentage, the surplus value created in production is presented as something that has nothing to do with production; it is abstracted from labor in general. Entrepreneurial income, on the contrary, is presented as a reward for labor, but for the “labor” of the entrepreneur. Interest and business income as transformed forms of profit are transformations of the fourth degree.

Mutual lending to commodity producers serves as the basis for bill circulation, and bill circulation serves as the basis on which the circulation of banknotes arises. Credit is used to purchase goods by the capitalist before he sells his goods and receives the proceeds for them. In these transactions, money becomes the means of payment. A bill is a debt (payment) obligation. The bill facilitates capitalist circulation, and, consequently, the reproduction of capital, making it independent of “specie”. As capitalism develops, bills of exchange from large firms become trading money. Commodity circulation, therefore, often takes the form: T-Bill - T. Marx identifies several roles of credit: 1) the equation of the rate of profit in all spheres of action of capital; 2) reduction of distribution costs; 3) by developing capitalist production, it contributes to its destruction; 4) promotes the formation of joint stock companies.

The role of banks is to mobilize funds from different segments of the population, thanks to which these funds have the opportunity to realize their added use value, that is, they turn into money capital provided to functioning capital in the form of a loan. Credit is provided in the form of bills or banknotes. To the extent that banknotes or bills are not backed by specie, they are fictitious capital.

Marx includes government loan bonds (state credit) and shares (share capital growing on the basis of credit) as fictitious capital. They do not represent any real capital, since they are only the right to receive regular cash income. All types of fictitious capital are based on interest-bearing capital.

Table 1


Scientific and technical potential at the R&D stage	Means of production as carriers of the already materialized level of scientific and technological progress	People engaged in social production	Investment reserves, existing resources, natural and biological factors

2) Expand the concepts of “product” and “service”, taking into account the increased role of the sphere of intangible production (Table 2).

table 2


Goods and works of main production	Services and works of a material nature (production infrastructure)	Labor power in the form of a commodity or quasi-commodity form	Non-material production services	Natural benefits fertilized by the costs of past and living labor through investment and innovation

		socialized quasi-commodity form

y 1 – services in the field of education, healthcare, social services; y 2 – services in the field of culture, art and all spiritual life; b 1 – geological exploration work that brings the search for deposits to industrial development, the creation of new types of productive livestock, agricultural crops through selection and selection, etc.; b 2 – creation of new technologies for the rational, waste-free use of raw materials, production of alternative sources of energy and fuel, creation of environmental technologies. Labor power appears in a quasi-commodity form when its purchase and sale does not mean that it acts as a commodity (for example, someone sending skilled workers abroad under a contract).

3) Determine, taking into account the adjustments made, the formula for modern commodity production.

D-D`(α) tm - T … P … T` tn - D`` tp ,

Д`` tp -Д`(α) tm = Д` tn βγq,

D- T … P … T`- D` tn βγq,

where β – inflation rate for the period tm (time of taking out a loan and repaying interest) until tp (product sales time) taking into account tn (time of development and serial production of products);α – share of the loan plus the interest rate for the loan;γ – coefficient of change in the selling price of the final product in relation to the average level of technological production, intensification and qualifications of labor, product quality and service; q – coefficient of increased or decreased use value.

This is one of the possible ways to modernize the labor theory of value, taking into account the existence of a high degree of social security and regulation of a diverse mixed market economy. This formula, according to the authors, can become the formula for a socialized surplus product.

But no one will be able to prove that such premises as: each worker produces a surplus product of constant size, the total profit in all spheres of production must be equal to the sum of surplus values, are sufficiently justified. “We have no more grounds for asserting that the rate of surplus value is the same than for considering it different across industries.” How do we prove that price is above cost in capital-intensive industries and below cost in labor-intensive industries? Nothing will change in the labor theory of value if we say that surplus value is created only by machines and equipment, then the transformation of values into prices can be carried out in the same way. A simple example shows us that surplus value is not a constant value: the same group of workers, mining platinum, produces more value than when mining tin or iron ore. Marx uses the wrong technique: he declares the observed to be an illusion, the speculative to be reality.

The most acceptable version of the theory of value has already been proposed within the framework of the general scientific theory of value, as a synthesis of the labor theory of value and the theory of marginal utility. A. Marshall was the first to carry out such a synthesis.

3.2 Modification of labor costs

Let me remind you that Marx understood labor power as the ability to work, “the totality of physical and spiritual abilities possessed by the organism, the living personality of a person.” “The cost of labor power is determined by the cost of the habitually necessary means of subsistence of the average worker.” Based on this definition, the cost of labor power was often interpreted as a certain averaged value of socially necessary costs for the reproduction of labor power, the same for all workers. But depending on the level of qualification, both the labor itself and its cost differ. At the same time, the costs of its reproduction included in the cost of labor power for each specific level of ability to work are socially necessary.

In the economic literature, the cost of labor is most often considered as a purely theoretical category, but in practice we are talking mainly about the price of labor. The price of labor refers to all the employer's costs for maintaining employees.

Marx does not provide a mathematical method for calculating the cost of labor power. However, based on his theory and the theory of human capital, a very interesting model was developed that does not contradict Marx’s theory of value.

In accordance with Marx's theory, labor power is a commodity, and in the formula for calculating the cost of goods, along with ( c+ v ) includes added value m . In the same way, the value of human capital can be assessed, which includes investments in human capital and the return on its use.

The cost of labor for a specialist with higher education ( S university ) will be equal to:

S university = S reproduction + D university, (1)

where S reproduce – cost of reproduction of labor;

D university – return on the education received at the university.

The cost of labor force reproduction can be equated to the minimum consumer budget, taking into account the costs of medical care.

S play =V demand. (1+ m), (2)

where B demand is the value of the minimum consumer budget;

m – coefficient of expenses for medical care (approximately equal to 0.14).

Annual return on education received at a university at a point in time t can be calculated using the formula from the theory of human capital:

D university, t =(Z education +Z tr)/∑(1/(1+r) t), (3)

D university, t -annual return on higher education per year t;

Z training - costs of studying at a university;

Z tr - costs not searching for a new job that matches education;

r -rate of return from higher education;

N - the number of years of working life after graduation.

Costs of studying at a university are calculated using the formula:

Z learn = (Z direct +Z lost )n, (4)

Z straight -direct cash costs for studying at a university;

Z rubbed -the amount of earnings “lost” during training;

n -number of years of study at the university.

If a student studies for free (at the expense of budgetary funds), the amount of direct costs of training is equal to the amount of government spending on higher education per student. “Lost” (or missed) earnings that a student could have earned without enrolling in a university must be no lower than the cost of reproduction of labor. It is therefore possible to equate the cost of “lost” earnings to the cost of reproduction of labor power. The rate of return to education, developed in human capital theory, is the rate of return on the education received. In developed countries, this ratio varies within 8-10 percent.

It is necessary to clarify that the quality of education affects the rate of return from higher education. In formula (3) this is taken into account in the amount of direct training costs. As a rule, tuition fees are directly proportional to the quality of training of specialists at the university.

But it is necessary to take into account the “quality” of the student himself using the diploma coefficient indicator q (average grade in diploma). Then the formula for calculating the annual return on higher education will take the form:

D university, t = (Z education + Z tr )/∑ (1/(1+(r+ q)) t ), (5)

If you use this formula in practice, you will get the following results. The monthly cost of labor for an economist ranges from 190 to 380 US dollars, depending on the university you graduated from. According to a survey of graduates of Moscow universities who have found employment over the past two or three years, their average salary is close to the calculated cost of labor. True, the latter is typical for commercial enterprises; in the public sector, wages do not exceed a third of the cost of labor.

This is where Marx could actually in our time obtain new data to confirm the theory of the origin of surplus value from unpaid labor.

3.3 Production price concept

Many copies have been broken due to the discrepancy between the values transformed into prices on the input side and on the output side. It is necessary to abandon either the labor theory of relative prices or the labor theory of profit.

L. Bortkevich was one of the first to propose a solution to this problem. He proposed a model in which both output and cost elements are recalculated from value to production prices. Social production in his model is divided into three divisions: the first produces means of production, the second produces consumer goods for workers, the third produces consumer goods for capitalists, luxury goods and a monetary commodity - gold. Bortkiewicz comes to the erroneous conclusion that organic third-party capital in the third division does not affect the rate of profit in the economy. But Marx III “Capital” proceeds from the fact that the law of value covers all sectors of the capitalist economy. In addition, the number of industries identified in this model should not include the production of gold, since gold has no price as a measure of the value of a commodity. Marx recognized that “production prices are a certain modification of value, do not directly coincide with it, and therefore have relative independence in relation to the latter. It is with this that the possibility of a quantitative discrepancy between the sum of prices and the sum of values, the sum of profits and produced surplus value is connected on the scale of the economy as a whole.”

But here is what V. Melkumyan, Candidate of Economic Sciences, senior lecturer at the Moscow Commercial Institute, writes: “The fallacy of such concepts lies in the fact that they offer a mathematical solution to what is actually a non-mathematical problem.” Then how do we find the relative prices of production and the general rate of profit? The answer will be: “The indicated calculation of production prices and the general rate of profit only illustrates the theoretical position of K. Marx that the establishment of a general rate of profit leads to a stable deviation of prices from value, but without violating the equality of the sum of prices to the sum of values (the amount of profit - the total mass surplus value) throughout the economy." But the main problem in a socialist, non-market economy is the determination of prices. It is easy to draw conclusions when prices are already determined by the market.

Trying to subordinate Marx's theories to at least some kind of mathematical law, some economists, like M. Ito, came to the conclusion that even gold has a transformation coefficient. In a mathematical study of the theory of labor value, J. Stidman came to a model of “negative” value. The possibility of the production price exceeding the cost in industries where the composition of capital is below average was proved by G. Langer. Marxist economists also rejected these models, but could not provide their mathematical confirmation. The latter would be very useful for the economic system of socialism.

Under capitalism, production costs are opposed by the market price of the product established in the market, while under the socialist method of production, the cost of the product is opposed by the value formed from the cost itself (production price). “Under capitalism, the practical answer is simple: the determination of what labor costs are necessary, as well as the reduction of complex labor to simple ones, is carried out on the market.” In other words, in Marxist theory everything is turned upside down, since observed prices must be transformed into unobservable values, and not vice versa.

3.4 Intersectoral movement of capital

Now the financial and credit system plays a leading role in the inter-industry movement of capital, and inter-industry companies are emerging. Marx in III volume of Capital developed a model of intersectoral capital flow. But “the very principle of constructing the average rate of profit according to Marx is such that this issue cannot be resolved on its basis.” The category of the average rate of profit according to Marx is based on the idea of total profit as a single product of total social capital.

The rate of profit of each capitalist depends on the costs of his enterprise. Accordingly, capitalists who have different rates of profit will have different propensities to transfer their capital to other industries. Marx nowhere gives an answer to the question of whether capitalists who in this industry have a higher rate of profit than their competitors will move their capital to an industry with a higher rate of profit.

First, a capitalist whose rate of profit is higher than the average in his industry compares his rate of profit with the rate in other industries. If his rate of return turns out to be lower, then he must take into account the risk, difficulties of introducing into another industry and the costs associated with this. Secondly, an outsider capitalist, in order to transfer his capital to another industry, must sell his enterprise. It is extremely difficult to sell a backward enterprise. Therefore, free flow of capital is possible only when the enterprise does not have fixed capital, but only working capital. When a firm exits an industry, it incurs losses equal to its fixed costs. If the firm's total losses do not exceed fixed costs, then in the short term it is advisable to continue production. Enterprises with an average rate of profit for a given industry have increased mobility. But, weighing all the pros and cons, the capitalist may not decide to transfer his capital. Capital is not as mobile as Marx assumed.

Differences in industry average rates of profit are not the cause of intersectoral capital movement, but only its regulator. In addition, there is a counter movement of capital from other industries, since they are equally profitable. This analysis rather complements and deepens Marx's theory.

Marx missed something else. Maximum profit margins cannot exist in any industry. The level of the rate of profit in conditions of capital flow is largely determined by the elasticity of demand for prices for different goods. In industries producing highly elastic goods, the following is observed: expansion of production, reduction in prices, growth in demand and profit margins, and a decrease in the level of monopolization. This explains the rapid growth of new and emerging industries. With the advent of a new generation of enterprises, earlier ones become traditional ones. From this we get that differences in industry profit rates are constantly reproduced thanks to scientific and technical progress. Following Marx's logic, inter-industry competition forces the capitalist class to expand the composition of industries and update the sectoral structure of social production.

History shows that “inter-industry differences in the rate of capital turnover, its organic structure and other parameters, and consequently in industry rates of profit, have long resisted the trend of averaging of the latter.” In the USA and Japan, for a long time, inter-industry differences in heavy and light industry overlapped and distorted the effect of the law of the average rate of profit. The average rate of profit, if it existed, was only as a hypothetical value that had no analogues in reality. In addition, important conditions are the regime of competition and free flow of capital between industries, uniform distribution of production among a large number of enterprises, approximate equality of supply and demand, etc. It is obvious that in reality such conditions are not achievable. The benchmark for inter-industry capital flow is rather the rate of profit of leading enterprises in the industry. The size of enterprises is of great importance, respectively, their ability to influence prices, non-price competition. Within concerns, financial and industrial groups, there is practically no competition between their divisions. Inflation means a general, but uneven rise in prices across industries.

For certain industries (for example, agriculture), the law of the average rate of profit does not exist at all. By and large, the law of the average rate of profit operates in half of the industries.

Modifications of the law are related to the peculiarities of pricing in various industries. If in industry, according to Marx’s theory of value, market prices fluctuate around transformed forms of value, then in agriculture they are determined by “closing costs on the worst plots of land, and are also associated with the form of ownership.”

It will not be long before Marx’s economic teachings fall “on the goddess of the history of political economy.” Because, as can be seen from the last chapter, it continues to inspire economists to do research. But as noted above, the application of Marx’s pure economic theory is impossible today. This does not mean that all Marxism is a thing of the past. There are suggestions that people have yet to understand Marx's philosophical teachings.

5. Bulgakov S.K. Marx as a religious type // Issues of Economics - 1990. - No. 11.

6. Dedov L. On Marxist political economy and neoclassical economic theory // Society and Economics - 2003. - No. 12. - P. 133-145.

7. Dinkevich A. The law of value: its modifications and limitations // Economist - 2000. - No. 12. - P. 60-68.

8. Zagoruiko I. A. Fedorov V. N. Mechanism and consequences of intersectoral capital movement // Bulletin of Moscow University - 1992. - Ser. 6. – Economics - No. 1. – P. 10-18.

9. Makovetsky M. Yu. Lectures on the discipline general economic theory for first-year students of the Faculty of Economics of Omsk State University.

10. Marx K. Capital - M.: Publishing house of political literature 1983

11. Marx K., Engels F. Soch. 2nd ed., vol. 25, part. I.

13. Nersesyants V. S. History of political and legal doctrines - M.: Norma 2002.

14. Platonov S. After communism - M.: 1990.

15. Rosenberg D.I. Commentary on “Capital” by K. Marx - M.: Economics 1983

16. Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Socialism as a positive doctrine//Questions of Economics.-1990. - No. 2. – P. 73-83.

17. Filatov V.I. Reflections on one criticism // Bulletin of Omsk University - 1998.-No. 4. – P.43-45.

18. Khmelevsky N. N. Modern aspects of modification of the theory of labor value // Bulletin of Moscow University - 1992. - Ser. 6. – Economics - No. 1. – P. 3-10.

Rosenberg D.I. Commentary on “Capital” by K. Marx - M.: Economics 1983, p. 253. Blaug M. Economic thought in retrospect - M.: 1994, p. 216.

Marx K. Capital - M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1983, p. 178.

Marx K. Capital - M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1983, p. 528.

Melkumyan V. Modern bourgeois and left-radical interpretations of the theory of value and production prices of K. Marx // Questions of Economics - 1990. - No. 5. - P. 93-103.

Braginsky S.V., Pevzner Ya.A. Political economy: debatable problems, ways of renewal - M.: 1991, p. 77.

Zagoruiko I. A, Fedorov V. N. Mechanism and consequences of intersectoral capital movement // Bulletin of Moscow University - 1992. - Ser. 6. – Economics - No. 1. – P. 10-18. Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Marxism is a theory that explained the development of society and nature.

Ideas of Marxism

It outlined ideas such as the revolution of the oppressed masses, the worldwide acceptance of socialism and the creation of a society whose main ideology would be communism. Marxism was most widespread in the second half of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Economic theory

The founders of Marxism were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Their theory is a unique continuation of classical political economy. In particular, one can observe this connection in the problem of the emergence of value, since Marxism distinguishes value from costs, and to be more precise, based on labor. This theory is set out in the main work of K. Marx “Capital”, which he wrote for more than 40 years.

Research methods

Abstraction and simplification formed the basis of the study. In other words, Marx built a unique economic model. Many classical scholars used this method, but Marx's specialty was the maximum simplification of the economic model. Next, Marx analyzed his model using deduction. Thus, he deduced the main provisions of the theory.

It is worth noting that much of Marx's work applies exclusively to macroeconomics. The above analysis applies the concept of economic equilibrium. Of course, sometimes Marx resorted to mathematical analysis, but this method was not particularly developed. Also, the economist does not apply marginal analysis of the economy.

From time to time, Marx resorts to considering the historical development of the economy, that is, he uses the historical method of analysis. Therefore, it cannot do without dynamic analysis.

Basic provisions of Marx's theory

Marx revealed that from the primitive production of goods aimed at their consumption, and where money is just a thing that is used in exchange, production under capitalism appears quite logically. The main goal is to make a profit. Marsk's research begins with understanding the production of goods. A product has two sides – use value and exchange value.

The first implies the possibility of satisfying a desire or need, no matter whether it is physical, social or otherwise. The second concept is the ability of a thing to be replaced in certain sizes by some other product. The proportion of exchange labor is based on the amount of labor expended, from which its ownership follows. However, we understand that the same goods are produced by different people, and each spends a different amount of time on production.

Marx sees the solution to this problem in calculating the socially necessary labor costs for the production of goods, taking into account the average level of qualification of producers and labor intensity, that is, the costs of the group producing most of the goods. Why is Marx's theory not always correct? Of course, there are no contradictions in Marxism; everything is coherent, logical and holistic.

However, the theory cannot always be applied to the real economy, since the study is based on incorrect assumptions. First of all, Marx assumes the obligatory productive use of capital, in other words, it must have no fundamental value. Marx also did not foresee that in the economy it is not always possible to maintain absolute balance and immutability. Without this it is impossible to justify the labor theory of value.

He brought to the level of scientific theory the idea of the classics of political economy about the dual nature of labor (in their works there was no clear division between use value and value, abstract and concrete labor).

He established that exchange is an essential condition for transforming the product of labor into a commodity, determining the value of a product, and its sale.

Classical political economy did not create a holistic doctrine of the market system of economic management. This gap was filled in its own way by the Austrian school of economic theory. It was founded by University of Vienna professors Carl Menger (1840 - 1921), Eugen Böhm-Bawerk (1851 - 1914) and Friedrich von Wieser (1851 - 1926).

The object of study of neoclassical economic theory is the behavior of Homo economicus - “economic man”, who, as a seller of labor, a consumer or an entrepreneur, tries to maximize his income and minimize costs (or efforts).

Proponents of neoclassical economic theory consider marginal utility to be the main category of analysis, contrasting it with the theory of labor value. They determine the value of a product by the utility of the last, least necessary item of consumption, that is, marginal utility.

The founder of the American school of economic theory, John Bates Clark (1847 - 1938), supplemented the concept of Austrian scientists with his theory of the marginal productivity of labor and capital and directly contrasted this theory with the political economic doctrine of surplus value. The income of workers and businessmen, according to J.B. Clark, correspond to the real contribution of labor and capital to the final product of production, which leads to harmony of class interests of capitalists and workers (the theory of marginal productivity of factors).

The introduction to the theory of limiting quantities led to the emergence of a mathematical school in economics (English scientist W. Jevons, Swiss economist M.E.L. Walras, Italian researcher B. Pareto). With the help of mathematical methods, it was possible to discover many functional (quantitative) mathematical dependencies in production, consumption and the market. In this way, optimal options for using production capabilities with limited resources are sought.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

BasicprovisionsMarxisttheories

Marxist economic labor productive

Unlike his predecessors, who defined political economy as the science of wealth, or the science of the national economy, K. Marx showed that political economy is a science that studies the production relations of people, the laws of development of social production and the distribution of material wealth at various levels of human society .

Using the legacy of the great classics V. Petty, F. Quesnay, A. Smith, D. Ricardo, as well as other economists as a theoretical basis, K. Marx and F. Engels substantiated an economic doctrine centered on the theory of exploitation of labor by capital. Taking into account the growing socio-economic contradictions of that time, a conclusion was made about the historical limitations of the private enterprise system, i.e. capitalism as a socio-economic formation.

The Marxist approach is based on the characterization of the economic system as a method of production - the unity of two components: the productive forces and the production relations corresponding to them. Productive forces reflect the relationship of man to nature and are a complex of basic factors of production: material and personal.

Productive forces include means of labor, objects of labor and labor. Production relations are objective relations that arise between people regarding material goods and services in the process of their production, distribution, exchange and consumption. The basis of these relations is formed by relations of appropriation - alienation, i.e. property relations that determine the way in which labor power and means of production are combined as the main factors of production.

According to the Marxist interpretation, the totality of production relations forms the basis of society. It is served by a corresponding superstructure in the form of political, religious, legal, etc. relationships. The method of production and the corresponding superstructure, which are in close interaction, form a socio-economic formation.

From these positions, 5 historical socio-economic formations are distinguished: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist (socialist).

A positive aspect of the formational approach is the recognition of the decisive role of the economy or material production in ensuring social development, the identification of dominant forms of ownership and its implementation through the appropriation of part of the created product. But significant disadvantages of the formational approach include the dominance of ideological aspects, underestimation of intangible production, evolutionary forms of development of society and overestimation of violent factors in its dynamics (military coups, revolutions). Historical development appears as discontinuous and discrete; the patterns of development of mixed economic systems are ignored. As a result, the formational approach greatly simplified the understanding of the evolution of society.

The main thing in the scientific heritage of K. Marx is his economic teaching. K. Marx dedicated his main work “Capital” to the disclosure of the basic economic law of movement of capitalist society. In it, the analysis of the system of economic relations begins with the commodity as an “elementary cell” of capitalism. In the product, according to K. Marx, all the contradictions of the system under study are embedded in the embryo. The product has a dual nature:

· firstly, the product is able to satisfy people’s needs, i.e. it has use value;

· secondly, it is produced for exchange and can be exchanged for other goods, i.e. has value.

The theory of value is the foundation of the grand edifice of Marxist political economy. Its essence is that the exchange of goods in society occurs in accordance with the amount of abstract labor that is spent on their production. Continuing the Ricardian tradition of understanding value, K. Marx introduced a fundamentally new point into its analysis - the doctrine of the dual nature of labor.

The dual nature of labor means that labor in commodity production is both concrete and abstract. Specific work is work characterized by a specific purpose, skills, organization, professional ability, aimed at creating a specific product. The result of specific labor is consumer value. Abstract labor is social labor (expenditure of muscles, energy, brain), abstracted from its concrete form. Abstract labor is a measure of various specific private types of labor. Its result is the value of the commodity, manifested in exchange value, i.e. the proportion of exchange of one good for another.

The value of a product is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor time spent on its production. Socially necessary labor time is the time required to produce any value under existing socially normal conditions of production and at the average level of skill and intensity of labor in a given society. With the help of these concepts, the law of value is formulated: in the process of exchange, goods are exchanged at their value as equivalent to equivalent. This is the law of equilibrium in the market, the law of commodity exchange.

K. Marx introduced the concept of surplus value into economics. The doctrine of the dual nature of labor allowed K. Marx to reveal the “secret” of surplus value. The classical school was unable to explain the origin of profit on the basis of the labor theory of value: after all, if wealth is created by labor, and labor is exchanged at an equivalent price, then there should be no profit. The principles of labor value and the equivalence of exchange turned out to be in mutual contradiction. K. Marx solves the problem by introducing a new concept - “commodity labor power”. Labor power, according to Marx, has a use value and a cost. The cost of this product corresponds to the cost of the means of subsistence necessary for the reproduction of labor power, and consumer value is determined by the ability of the labor force to work. The capitalist buys on the market not labor, but labor power, i.e. ability to work. The difference between the value of labor power and the value it can create is what Marx calls surplus value. Surplus value is the source of profit for the capitalist. Labor power is thus a special commodity, capable of creating value greater than the cost of labor power.

Surplus value is created by abstract social labor and appears as the unpaid labor of the worker. During the working day, the worker must first produce a value equivalent to the value of his labor power. Marx called the labor spent on this necessary labor. For the rest of the working day, the worker is engaged in surplus labor, creating surplus value. The ratio of surplus and necessary labor and the corresponding working time spent by the worker characterizes the degree of exploitation of workers by capitalists. Consequently, labor power, purchased on the labor market for wages, not only pays for itself, but also serves as a source of surplus value, which the capitalist appropriates free of charge, having ownership of the means of production.

K. Marx, having created the doctrine of surplus value, showed capitalist exploitation as the process of appropriation by capitalists of surplus value created by workers. K. Marx sees two ways to increase the degree of exploitation:

1) a direct increase in surplus labor by lengthening the working day;

2) a change in the ratio of surplus and necessary labor within a fixed working day.

He calls the first way the receipt of absolute surplus value, the second - the receipt of relative surplus value.

The first is characteristic of early capitalism, the second - for its mature forms. A reduction in the required time can be achieved by reducing the cost of workers' means of subsistence, due to an increase in labor productivity.

Marx identifies another way to increase surplus value: obtaining excess surplus value by reducing individual production costs in comparison with socially necessary ones. But this type of surplus value cannot be appropriated by all capitalists, and even for individual capitalists it is temporary, associated with the use of innovations until they become public property. Consequently, surplus value always appears as the result of the exploitation of a worker who works for free for the capitalist.

Based on the theory of surplus value, K. Marx revealed the category of “capital” as a self-increasing value expressing relations of exploitation and introduced the division of capital according to the principle of participation in the creation of value: into constant capital, represented in the form of means of production, and variable capital invested in labor. Constant capital (c) is capital that does not change its value during the production process. Through the concrete labor of the worker it is preserved and transferred to the finished product. Variable capital (v) increases in the production process thanks to the abstract labor of the worker, which not only reproduces the value of labor power, but also creates surplus value (m). The division of capital into constant and variable reveals the dual nature of the value of goods. The latter consists of the transferred value (c) and the new value (v + m). As a result, the cost of the created product is expressed:

Capital in its movement constantly increases due to surplus value. K. Marx calls the increase in capital due to surplus value the accumulation of capital. The accumulation of capital is accompanied by a change in its structure, which is represented by the organic structure of capital, expressed by the ratio of constant capital to variable capital.

Since the organic composition of capital increases as a result of technical progress, the demand for labor grows more slowly than the amount of capital. Hence, according to K. Marx, the inevitable growth of the army of the unemployed, and therefore the deterioration of the position of the working class as capitalist production develops. K. Marx formulated the “universal law of capitalist accumulation”: the accumulation of wealth at one pole, among the capitalist class, is accompanied by the accumulation of poverty, the deterioration of the position of the working class at the other pole.

The growth of the organic structure of capital is due to the fact that in the pursuit of profit, in the fight against competitors, the capitalist is forced to use new technologies and machines, replacing them with living human labor. This strategy of economic behavior has far-reaching consequences:

· firstly, it leads to an ever-increasing concentration of production and capital in the hands of a small elite of society, which is quickly enriching itself against the backdrop of the impoverishment of the vast majority of the population;

· secondly, the need for human labor is decreasing, which means that the number of unemployed people without a means of subsistence is growing;

· thirdly, the rate of profit on the capital used is gradually decreasing, since, according to Marx, new value is created only by living labor, and less and less of it is required.

The main conclusion that Marx comes to is that the position and interests of capitalists and wage workers are diametrically opposed, irreconcilable within the framework of the capitalist system, which constantly divides society into two poles: the owners of the means of production, who buy and exploit other people's labor power, and the proletarians who have nothing but labor, which they are forced to constantly sell so as not to die of hunger. Thus, the doctrine of the internal laws of development of capitalism has turned into a doctrine of the historical inevitability of its death and the justification for the revolutionary transition to socialism. In the depths of capitalism, objective and subjective conditions for its destruction are created, the prerequisites for replacing capitalism with a new society devoid of exploitation. The solution to this problem is happening in a revolutionary way. The first volume of Capital ends with a study of the historical trend of capitalist accumulation.

The second volume of Capital was published in 1885. It is devoted to the study of the production process as a unity of production and circulation, first in relation to individual and then to social capital. K. Marx analyzes the circulation of three functional forms of capital, monetary, productive and commodity. This volume introduces the categories of fixed and working capital and distribution costs. Problems of reproduction are considered.

K. Marx built schemes of simple (constant in scale) and expanded reproduction. He divides all social reproduction into two divisions: the production of means of production and the production of consumer goods. Their relationship is represented by an equation in which constant and variable capital and surplus value appear. The conclusion from the model boils down to the following: with simple reproduction, the sum of variable capital and surplus value of the first division must be equal to the constant capital of the second division, and with expanded reproduction - more than this constant capital. Schemes of simple and expanded reproduction showed how exchange is carried out between two divisions and economic relations are reproduced. Considering the problems of reproduction, K. Marx develops the theory of the cycle. Rejecting Say's concept of the impossibility of general crises of production, he argued their inevitability due to the anarchy of production. Capitalist production moves through phases of crisis, depression, revival, recovery - to a new crisis. The internal logic of the unfolding of the economic crisis is revealed through the following provisions:

· dependence of investment activity on the rate of return;

· inverse relationship between the level of wages and the rate of profit;

· the presence of a “reserve army of labor”, i.e. constant excess of supply over demand in the labor market.

The period of economic recovery is characterized by the presence of incentives for the accumulation of capital, a growing demand for labor, a reduction in unemployment, an increase in wages and, consequently, a decrease in the rate of profit. The fall in the rate of profit reaches such a point that the incentives for capital accumulation cease to operate and investment ceases, unemployment rises, wages fall, prices fall, and accumulated reserves depreciate. These processes, in turn, cause an increase in the rate of profit, which restores incentives for capital accumulation, and a revival and then an upturn in the economy begins.

Marx drew attention to the fact that the cycle acquires a repeating, regular character, since it receives a material basis in the form of a cycle of renewal of fixed capital. The crisis synchronizes the disposal of equipment; the beginning of the recovery phase creates conditions for new mass purchases and, accordingly, synchronization of the processes of its obsolescence, subsequent disposal and mass purchases. Identification of the material basis of 10-year cycles of production development under capitalism is an important theoretical achievement of Marx. During each cycle, economic restructuring occurs, accompanied by an increase in investment and the creation of jobs for the sake of maximizing profits, until, in the process of accumulation, downward tendencies in the rate of profit prevail, entailing a reduction in production, employment, and income, resulting in a new crisis situation. . The ultimate cause of crises, according to K. Marx, is the poverty of the population and limited demand, which indicates the need to change the economic system.

K. Marx and F. Engels believed that communist society would go through two stages in its development (“socialism” and “communism”). At the first stage, private property disappears, planning will break the anarchy of production, distribution will be carried out according to labor, commodity-money relations will gradually die out. At the second stage, the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is implemented.

The merits of Marxism in the development of economic theory are enormous. Firstly, a number of the most important features of the market economic system were identified, associated with the growing concentration of production and capital, the intensification of crisis phenomena, and the exploitation of hired workers. Secondly, a new language of economic science was created, associated with the doctrine of surplus value.

The scientific legacy left by K. Marx is read in different ways and remains the subject of ongoing debate, discussion, and controversy.

Some try to refute the theory of K. Marx, others defend its validity, and sometimes the inviolability of his main provisions and conclusions.

Not all ideas of Marxism have been confirmed in life. Such assumptions as the provisions about the continuous decline in real wages and living standards of workers, the impoverishment of the proletariat and class polarization, and the inevitability of the socialist revolution did not come true.

K. Marx and F. Engels underestimated the potential strength of the market system, its ability to self-development and modification.

A more balanced, objective assessment of the Marxist heritage is the desire to clarify and rethink the ideas contained in his works from the perspective of ongoing changes, the conclusions of economic science, and the achievements of universal human culture.

The indisputable contribution of Marxism to the development of theory is recognized by all scientists without exception. Marxism was a coherent scientific theory that reflected the realities of its time and numerous factual data. The scientific development of many topical problems allows it to be used along with other economic theories to develop a modern scientific concept of social development.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...