Review of Business and Economics Studies, 2017, том 5, № 4
Покупка
Основная коллекция
Тематика:
Экономика. Бухгалтерский учет. Финансы
Наименование: Review of Business and Economics Studies
Год издания: 2017
Кол-во страниц: 76
Дополнительно
Вид издания:
Журнал
Артикул: 705325.0001.99
Тематика:
ББК:
УДК:
ГРНТИ:
Скопировать запись
Фрагмент текстового слоя документа размещен для индексирующих роботов.
Для полноценной работы с документом, пожалуйста, перейдите в
ридер.
Review of Business and Economics Studies EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Prof. Alexander Ilyinsky Dean, International Finance Faculty, Financial University, Moscow, Russia ailyinsky@fa.ru EXECUTIVE EDITOR Dr. Zbigniew Mierzwa EDITORIAL BOARD Dr. Mark Aleksanyan Adam Smith Business School, The Business School, University of Glasgow, UK Prof. Edoardo Croci Research Director, IEFE Centre for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy, Università Bocconi, Italy Prof. Moorad Choudhry Dept.of Mathematical Sciences, Brunel University, UK Prof. David G. Dickinson Department of Economics, Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, UK Prof. Chien-Te Fan Institute of Law for Science and Technology, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan Prof. Wing M. Fok Director, Asia Business Studies, College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, USA Prof. Konstantin P. Glushchenko Faculty of Economics, Novosibirsk State University, Russia Prof. George E. Halkos Associate Editor in Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press; Director of Operations Research Laboratory, University of Thessaly, Greece Dr. Christopher A. Hartwell President, CASE — Center for Social and Economic Research, Warsaw, Poland Prof. Sebastian Jaimungal Associate Chair of Graduate Studies, Dept. Statistical Sciences & Mathematical Finance Program, University of Toronto, Canada Prof. Vladimir Kvint Chair of Financial Strategy, Moscow School of Economics, Moscow State University, Russia Prof. Alexander Melnikov Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Alberta, Canada Prof. George Kleiner Deputy Director, Central Economics and Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Prof. Kern K. Kwong Director, Asian Pacific Business Institute, California State University, Los Angeles, USA Prof. Dimitrios Mavrakis Director, Energy Policy and Development Centre, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece Prof. Stephen McGuire Director, Entrepreneurship Institute, California State University, Los Angeles, USA Prof. Rustem Nureev Сhairman for Research of the Department of Economic Theory, Financial University, Russia Dr. Oleg V. Pavlov Associate Professor of Economics and System Dynamics, Department of Social Science and Policy Studies, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA Prof. Boris Porfiriev Deputy Director, Institute of Economic Forecasting, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Prof. Thomas Renstrom Durham University Business School, Department of Economics and Finance, Durham University Prof. Alan Sangster Professor of Accounting (Business and Management) at University of Sussex, UK Prof. Svetlozar T. Rachev Professor of Finance, College of Business, Stony Brook University, USA Prof. Boris Rubtsov Deputy chairman of Department of financial markets and banks for R&D, Financial University, Russia Dr. Shen Minghao Director of Center for Cantonese Merchants Research, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China Prof. Dmitry Sorokin Chairman for Research, Financial University, Russia Prof. Robert L. Tang Chancellor for Academic, De La Salle College of Saint Benilde, Manila, The Philippines Dr. Dimitrios Tsomocos Saïd Business School, Fellow in Management, University of Oxford; Senior Research Associate, Financial Markets Group, London School of Economics, UK REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS STUDIES (ROBES) is the quarterly peerreviewed scholarly journal published by the Financial University under the Government of Russian Federation, Moscow. Journal’s mission is to provide scientific perspective on wide range of topical economic and business subjects. CONTACT INFORMATION Financial University Leningradsky prospekt, 53, office 5.6 123995 Moscow Russian Federation Telephone: +7 (499) 943-98-02 Website: www.robes.fa.ru AUTHOR INQUIRIES Inquiries relating to the submission of articles can be sent by electronic mail to robes@fa.ru. COPYRIGHT AND PHOTOCOPYING © 2017 Review of Business and Economics Studies. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. Single photocopies of articles may be made for personal use as allowed by national copyright laws. ISSN 2308-944X
Вестник исследований бизнеса и экономики ГЛАВНЫЙ РЕДАКТОР А.И. Ильинский, профессор, декан Международного финансо вого факультета Финансового университета ВЫПУСКАЮЩИЙ РЕДАКТОР Збигнев Межва, д-р экон. наук РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ М.М. Алексанян, профессор Бизнесшколы им. Адама Смита, Университет Глазго (Великобритания) К. Вонг, профессор, директор Института азиатско-тихоокеанского бизнеса Университета штата Калифорния, Лос-Анджелес (США) К.П. Глущенко, профессор экономического факультета Новосибирского госуниверситета С. Джеимангал, профессор Департамента статистики и математических финансов Университета Торонто (Канада) Д. Дикинсон, профессор Департамента экономики Бирмингемской бизнесшколы, Бирмингемский университет (Великобритания) В.Л. Квинт, заведующий кафедрой финансовой стратегии Московской школы экономики МГУ, профессор Школы бизнеса Лассальского университета (США) Г. Б. Клейнер, профессор, член-корреспондент РАН, заместитель директора Центрального экономико-математического института РАН Э. Крочи, профессор, директор по научной работе Центра исследований в области энергетики и экономики окружающей среды Университета Боккони (Италия) Д. Мавракис, профессор, директор Центра политики и развития энергетики Национального университета Афин (Греция) С. Макгвайр, профессор, директор Института предпринимательства Университета штата Калифорния, Лос-Анджелес (США) А. Мельников, профессор Депар та мента математических и ста тистических исследований Университета провинции Альберта (Канада) Р.М. Нуреев, профессор, научный руководитель Департамента экономической теории Финансового университета О.В. Павлов, профессор Депар та мента по литологии и полити ческих исследований Ворчестерского политехнического института (США) Б.Н. Порфирьев, профессор, член-корреспондент РАН, заместитель директора Института народнохозяйственного прогнозирования РАН С. Рачев, профессор Бизнес-кол леджа Университета Стони Брук (США) Т. Ренстром, профессор, Школа Бизнеса Даремского университета, Департамент Экономики и Финансов Б.Б. Рубцов, профессор, заместитель руководителя Департамента финансовых рынков и банков по НИР Финансового университета А. Сангстер, профессор, Сассекский университет (Великобритания) Д.Е. Сорокин, профессор, членкорреспондент РАН, научный руководитель Финансового университета Р. Тан, профессор, ректор Колледжа Де Ла Саль Св. Бенильды (Филиппины) Д. Тсомокос, Оксфордский университет, старший научный сотрудник Лондонской школы экономики (Великобритания) Ч.Т. Фан, профессор, Институт права в области науки и технологии, национальный университет Цин Хуа (Тайвань) В. Фок, профессор, директор по исследованиям азиатского бизнеса Бизнес-колледжа Университета Лойола (США) Д.Е. Халкос, профессор, Университет Фессалии (Греция) К.А. Хартвелл, президент Центра социальных и экономических исследований CASE (Польша) М. Чудри, профессор, Университет Брунеля (Великобритания) М. Шен, декан Центра кантонских рыночных исследований Гуандунского университета (КНР) Редакция научных журналов Финансового университета 123995, Москва, ГСП-5, Ленинградский пр-т, 53, комн. 5.6 Тел. 8 (499) 943-98-02. Интернет: www.robes.fa.ru. Журнал “Review of Business and Economics Studies” («Вест ник исследований бизнеса и экономики») зарегистрирован в Федеральной службе по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций 15 сентября 2016 г. Свидетельство о регистрации ПИ № ФС77-67072. Подписано в печать: 15.12.2017. Формат 60 × 84 1/8. Заказ № 1233 от 15.12.2017. Отпечатано в Отделе полиграфии Финуниверситета (Ленинградский проспект, д. 49). 16+
CONTENTS The Historical Fate of the ‘First Great Discovery’ of Marx Rustem Nureev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Implementation of Multivariate Statistical Analysis for Warning Forecasting Zbigniew Mierzwa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Determinants of Banks’ Profitability: Empirical Evidence from Vietnam Phan Dai Thich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Methodology of Stratification Research of Modern Civil Society in Russia Marina L. Galas, Tatiana I. Pak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Limitations of Modern International Finance and Accounting Practices through Analysis of Short-Termism Svetlana E. Erofeeva, Irina O. Yurasova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 Internet Access Cut to the Test of Law in the Democratic Republic of Kongo: Violation of the Rights of the Users or Imperative Security? Tshibola Lubeshi Aimée Murphie, Abetemani Negeleni Ruben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Greening of Economy as a Factor of the Russia’s Innovative Development Polina A. Nosko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 4, 2017
Вестник исследований бизнеса и экономики № 4, 2017 CОДЕРЖАНИЕ Историческая судьба «Первого великого открытия» Маркса Нуреев Р. М. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Применение многомерного статистического анализа для конструкции предупреждающих прогнозов Межва Збигнев . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Детерминанты доходности банков: эмпирические данные из Вьетнама Пхан Дай Тхих . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Методология исследования стратификации современного гражданского общества в России Галас М. Л., Пак Т. И. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Выявление недостатков современной международной финансовой и учетной практики посредством проведения анализа явления «шорт-термизм» Ерофеева С. Е., Юрасова И. О. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Интернет-доступ в свете закона в Демократической Республике Конго: нарушение прав пользователей или императив безопасности? Тчибола Эйми Мурфи Лубеши, Абетемани Рибен Негелени . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Экологизация экономики как фактор инновационного развития России Носко П. А. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 4, 2017 The Historical Fate of the ‘First Great Discovery’ of Marx Rustem Nureev Head of Economic Department, Financial University Sc.D. in Economics, Ordinary Professor of HSE Moscow, Russia depet@fa.ru SPIN РИНЦ: 9366–0174 ORCID: 0000–0003–1407–2657 ResearcherID: P‑9648–2015 Scopus AuthorID: 35759212500 Abstract. The paper studies the ‘first great discovery’ of Marx in works of his disciples and followers. We analyse the background and reasons for rejection of Marx’s economic doctrine by Western academia, on the one hand, and the rapid spread of Marxist philosophy, on the other. Unsystematic perceptions of the economic legacy of Marx, absolutisation in different periods of development of separate published works, their analysis in isolation from other writings of the founder of Marxism led to a certain simplification and vulgarisation of his views in the SocialDemocratic literature of the late XIX–early XX century, as well as in Soviet economic literature in the years 1920–1980. Particular attention is paid to analysis of works of Marx’s followers, showing their role as a factor of promoting and vulgarising of his writings. There are also studied the factors that contributed to primitivisation of Marxism. Why did Marx have ‘no luck’ with the followers? Above all, it seems because he was looking for them among the working class. Those few whose did not come from the workers’ environment, unfortunately, did not have a fundamental economic education. Any departure from strictly economic objectivism perceived not only academic scientists, but also the social-democratic theorists as a retreat from historical materialism, the rejection of the basic precepts of Marxism. Mechanistic study of materialism in the knowledge of socio-economic phenomena, focus on the study of history as a natural-historical process led to an underestimation of social practice and its role in the transformation and development of society. Understanding history as a result of human activities left in the shadows. This is typical not only for Karl Kautsky, but also to some extent for the largest philosopher among the Social Democrats — Plekhanov. The spread of Marxism ‘in breadth’ has occurred to a much greater extent than it was allowed by existing economic, social and cultural conditions of the countries of Eastern Europe. But the same Russian reality has become a brake for the spread of Marxism in Russia ‘in depth’ for its development in an integrated and adequate primary source form. Finally, we analyse the causes of increasing interest to the scholarly Marxism in recent years. Keywords: materialist conception of history; ‘people’s’ (vulgarized) Marxism; ‘academic’ Marxism. JEL: B14, B15, B24, B41
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 4, 2017 Историческая судьба «Первого великого открытия» Маркса Рустем Нуреев доктор экономических наук, профессор научный руководитель Департамента экономической теории Финансовый университет Ординарный профессор Департамент прикладной экономики, Факультет экономических наук Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики» depet@fa.ru SPIN РИНЦ: 9366–0174 ORCID: 0000–0003–1407–2657 ResearcherID: P‑9648–2015 Scopus AuthorID: 35759212500 Аннотация. В статье исследуется «Первое великое открытие» Маркса в работах его учеников и последователей. Анализируются предпосылки и причины неприятия экономической доктрины Маркса западными учеными, с одной стороны, и стремительное распространение марксистской философии, с другой. Несистемное восприятие экономического наследия Маркса, абсолютизация в разные периоды развития отдельных опубликованных произведений, их анализ в отрыве от других трудов основателя марксизма привели к определенному упрощению и вульгаризации его взглядов в социал-демократической литературе конца XIX — начала XX в., а также в советской экономической литературе 1920–1980 гг. Особое внимание уделяется анализу произведений последователей Маркса, указывая на их роль, как фактору продвижения, так и вульгаризации его произведений. Изучаются также факторы, которые способствовали примитивизации марксизма. Почему Марксу не повезло с последователями? Прежде всего, кажется, потому, что он искал их среди рабочего класса. Те немногие, кто не происходил из рабочей среды, к сожалению, не имели фундаментального экономического образования. Любой отход от строго экономического объективизма воспринимался не только академическими учеными, но и социал-демократическими теоретиками, как отступление от исторического материализма, отказ от основных заветов марксизма. Механистическое исследование материализма при изучении социально-экономических явлений, ориентация на изучение истории как естественноисторического процесса привело к недооценке социальной практики и ее роли в трансформации и развитии общества. Понимание истории как результата человеческой деятельности осталось в тени. Это характерно не только для Карла Каутского, но и в некоторой степени для крупнейшего философа среди социал-демократов — Плеханова. Распространение марксизма «вширь» произошло в гораздо большей степени, чем это было разрешено существующими экономическими, социальными и культурными условиями стран Восточной Европы. Но сама же российская реальность стала тормозом для распространения марксизма в России «вглубь», для его развития в интегрированной и адекватной первичной форме. Наконец, мы анализируем причины повышенного интереса к научному марксизму в последние годы. Ключевые слова: материалистическая концепция истории; «народный» (вульгарный) марксизм; «академический» марксизм.
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 4, 2017 1. THE BELATED DISCOVERy of MARx At the funeral of Karl Marx on Saturday, March 17, 1883, at Highgate Cemetery was attended only by 11 people. His friend and colleague, Friedrich Engels, uttered the phrase, which then might seem an overestimation, “And his name, and his work will survive the century” (Marx & Engels, Vol. 19, p. 352). Friedrich Engels in a speech at the funeral of Marx as his biggest achievement highlights two discoveries: the materialist conception of history and the law of motion of modern capitalist mode of production — the production of surplus value (Marx & Engels, Vol. 19, p. 350–351). Indeed, to his contemporaries Marx was known only by those works that were published in very limited editions. The influence of Marx’s writings on his contemporaries was quite modest. More than three–quarters of Marx’s works were not published during his lifetime. But the fact, that the main works were published in different countries and in different languages. His publications in the New York Tribune were focused on current events, polemical works such as “The Holy Family” (1845) and “Poverty of Philosophy” (1847), and were known only to a narrow circle of friends. “Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” (1859) and “Capital” (1867) at that time were not yet understood by contemporaries and ignored by the official academic science. The second and third volumes of “Capital” was published by Frederick Engels after Marx’s death (in 1885 and in 1894), the fourth volume — by Karl Kautsky in 1905–1910. However, the final volume was leaked to the public until after his secondary publication by the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in 1954–1961. The revolutionary “Theses on Feuerbach” (1845) appeared only as a supplement to the Engels’ work “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of German Classical Philosophy” in 1888; “Outline of a response to a letter Zasulich”—in 1924; “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844”—in 1932; “The German Ideology” (1845) —in 1932–33; “Chapter Six. The results of the direct process of production”—in 1933; “Economic Manuscripts 1857–1859”—in the original language in 1939–1941, and in Russian translation in 1968–1969; “Economic manuscript of 1861–1863” (Notebook IV, XV–XXIII)—in 1973–1980; the first and third chapters of the second version of “Capita” Volume II — in 1981, etc. Non-systemic perception of the Marx’s economic heritage, its absolutized status in different periods of development of separately published works, their analysis in isolation from the other Marx’s writings — led to the famous simplification and vulgarization of Marxism’s founder views in the Social-Democratic literature of the late XIX–early XX century, as well as in Soviet economic literature in the years 1920–1980. Published works lasted for 100 years, and understanding only started at the end of the socialist period (Ilyenkov, 1960; Rosental’, 1967; Vazyulin, 1968; Rosental’, 1971; Kuz’min, 1976). For a long time was not the main thing: remove the sacredness with the works of Marx, understanding it not as a prophet but as a living person, as a developing scientist. The first steps in this direction in our country have been made only in the years 1970–1980 (Vygodskiy, 1970; Vygodskiy, 1975; Shkredov, 1973; Bagaturia & Vygodskiy, 1976; Kogan, 1983; Smirnov, 1984; Pervonachal’nyi, 1987; Cherkovets, 1988–1989). However, in the mid-1980s in Russia has already begun restructuring and the crisis of Marxist ideology drew away the creative findings of a new generation of Marxists. Creative Marxism began to seem less important than what has been done in the Western economic science for a hundred years after Marx’s death. Meanwhile, the influence of Marx on the Western economic science was, to the surprise of the Soviet people, more than modest. This was partly to blame, and Marx himself. 2. THE REASONS FOR REJECTION of The MARx’S TeAChIngS By WESTERN ACADEMIC ECONOMICS Karl Marx believed that the best in the first volume of “Capital” was presented the dual character of labour and analysis of surplus value regardless of the specific forms of its manifestation: profit, interest and ground rent (Marx & Engels, Vol. 31, p. 277). What appeared to be the main for Marx, was not so impressive for his contemporaries. Why did it happen? In opposition to the first volume of “Capital” Western Economic Community is not surprising and it is difficult to find (after Marx), a conspiracy of silence. Rare academic writings receive worldwide fame immediately at the time of publication. To do this, in any case, requires certain assumptions, which in this case entirely absent. Marx never taught in any more or less well-known university. His doctoral thesis, he got quite a long time ago (in 1841) at the University of Jena, known for the fact that the school give quickly and without controversy reviews
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 4, 2017 on doctoral dissertation. In any case, Marx received his Ph.D. after 9 days after dispatched his thesis (Wheen, 2003). Public protection (as in the Soviet Union) or wide debates (as in medieval universities), of course, was not, also Marx didn’t have teaching experience in top schools. Even this simple fact is easily explained the delay in the dissemination of his ideas. In addition, the product works strife: “The Communist Manifesto” can be read in one night. But with the Marx’s “Capital” implement such an operation is difficult 1. It takes time, desire, and most importantly — a certain level of training. And the training is quite serious — as a special (to be acquainted, at least, the German classical philosophy and English and French classical political economy) and total (must be at least a university education in the humanities, which is unlikely to be found among the then working class). Recall that as a great achievement in the middle of the XIX century was seen by the introduction of compulsory primary education in the UK. And England in this respect is well ahead of the continent. The lack of interest explains the paradoxical fact that the English language is the 1st volume of “Capital” will translate only 20 years later, in 1887. 1 “And myself stroking the neck — told himself S. A. Esenin, —I say — our time has come: let’s, Sergey, sit down for Marx quietly for solving the wisdom of boring lines.” Yet the question of proletarian origin was exaggerated importance in the XIX and XX century. Marx resigned as chairman of the General Council of the I International on the grounds that it is not representative of the working class 2. It is curious that this tradition continues well: in the Soviet Union until the mid-80s. Of the twentieth century in the departments of political economy of universities there were significant advantage people with manufacturing experience, not those who had completed school education in current year. We should not forget the fact that the peak of popularity of the labour theory of value (at least in its Ricardian interpretation) in an academic environment for a long time has passed in the 70–90-es. XIX century beginning to be more common theory of marginal utility. Although the first steps in this area have been made much earlier (A. Cournot in 1838 and H. Gossen in 1854), but only 1870 was marked qualitative change in this area: in 1871 have published William Stanley Jevons (1835–1882) and Carl Menger (1840–1921), 2 Marx believed himself ineligible for election to the post of Chairman of the General Council of the International “because he is an employee of mental work, not those who are working hands.” While not denying the obvious fact that the General Council International can work and people of non-proletarian origin. Fig. 1. Value as the basis of the price level (according to Marx). The interpretation from the perspective of neoclassical economists
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 4, 2017 in 1874—Leon Walras (1834–1910). Later, there were works Eugen Böhm-Bawerk (1851–1914) and Friedrich von Wieser (1851–1926). The theory of marginal utility is complemented in 1886 by the marginal productivity theory of John Bates Clark (1847–1938). In fact, all these changes are of course did not find any reflection in subsequent editions and translations of the first volume of “Capital”, prepared by Marx (1872 and 1875) and Engels (1883, 1886 and 1890). In fact, the changes were crucial character: instead of political economy as a philosophy of economics there is another science — economics, serving as a set of practical recipes to optimize the activity of economic agents in resource-limited settings. Although technically the term ‘Economics’ will appear in 1871 in the “Theory of Political Economy” by W. Jevons, its widespread and contemporary content refers to a later period: in 1880–1890-es. Shifting the center of economic research. If the focus of the classics of English political economy was the sphere of production (Adam Smith) and distribution (Ricardo), the constructions of new economists increasingly important sphere of exchange and consumption. Change and the scale of consideration: in the center is not a state, and the firm and the individual. The microeconomic framework for the analysis of market structures displace macroeconomic scale political economy. Changes and micro-economic foundations of the analysis itself. If the focus of Adam Smith and David Ricardo was the law of value, that of John Stuart Mill, this role is played by the law of supply and demand, and at the Menger, Jevons, and William L. Walras — the law of diminishing utility. Change not only the purpose and object of study, but also the method of analysis. In place of formal and dialectical logic is gradually coming mathematical logic. The focus of research is comparative statics, optimization and equilibrium models. These changes are summarized Alfred Marshall (1842–1924) in his “Principles of Economics” (1890). Not surprisingly, in these circumstances, the intricate construction of Karl Marx’s dialectic was no demand. From the standpoint of what was then the science they seemed more to the past than in the future, more theoretical than practical. Being cut off from the modern academic science, its newest search and discovery, it is in the silence of the library of the British Museum was interested in secular trends in the development of political economy, in terms of which new ideas seemed a vulgarization of the classical foundations. If Marx was interested in the cost as the basis of market prices and the entire first volume of “Capital” is premised on matching price value, then it is much Fig. 2. The subject of research neoclassicism — the relative price changes
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 4, 2017 more interested in the contemporary cases of deviation of prices from values. If the focus of Marx is perfect competition, then the focus of neoclassical — market structures that grow out of this perfect competition: pure and natural monopoly, monopolistic competition and price discrimination, oligopoly and monopsony. To oversimplify, clarify this with an intuitive graphical example. In modern language of economics, Marx mainly interested in the absolute equilibrium level (see Fig. 1): why pies are sold for 10 roubles, and modern cars for hundreds of thousands. The focus of economists — is neoclassical, on the contrary, the relative change in prices. With respect to perfect competition means shifts demand and supply curves (see fig. 2). However, the current economy is, of course, is not limited to the analysis of perfect competition, and explores all types of market structures (and not only in relation to the markets of consumer goods and services, but also to the markets of resources). 3. ThRee MySTeRIeS of The MATERIALIST CONCEPTION of hISToRy “In general, — Karl Marx wrote in the Preface to “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”—Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production South designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society” (Marx & Engels, Vol. 13, p. 7). Attention is drawn to the fact that in this classic work of world history periodization given in– completely incomprehensible, at first glance, the form. Firstly, it is unclear why the four modes of production correspond to only one formation, and secondly, why she named this formation as something strange: no socio–economic, social and economic (the word ‘economic’ somehow put in the first place). Third, the unknown is itself a list of modes of production: the primitive no, nor communist system, but indicated some Asiatic mode of production, and the slave system called antique. The first answer that one is tempted to is that the translation of this phrase from German made incorrectly, inaccurate, untrue. However, if we look at the original (Marx, 1939, p. 338), and learn the history of the translation of this place, it is easy to see that this is not so. Translations of this place in the second edition of the works of Marx and Engels made … Lenin, more precisely, given in the same form in which it did Lenin for his work “Karl Marx” 3. Therefore, the problem is not in the form of transfer, and the content of the phrase. Try to answer the questions posed in order. 1. The fact that, along with the now common use of the term ‘socio-economic, formation’ in the sense of a certain stage in the progressive development of human society arising on the basis of certain social mode of production, and therefore characterized by a certain level of development of the productive forces, a certain type of production relations and towering above them in the form of an add–historically certain public institutions, ideas, and forms of social consciousness; along with the use of the concept of ‘socio–economic system’ is found in Marx and the use of this concept in other, more broadly — as a group of formations that are similar in type of production relations, the nature of class division, nature of the state, forms of social consciousness. Thus, Marx in a number of papers brings together all the information in one class. In the preface to the work “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”, in which Marx gave a detailed description of the materialist conception of history, the concept of ‘formation’ have consumed in a double sense. “In general, —wrote Marx — Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production … developing in the womb of bourgeois the productive forces of society create also the material conditions for the solution of this antagonism. Therefore, social formation is completed prehistory of human society” (Marx & Engels, Vol. 13, pp. 7–8). From the context it is clear that in the first case, the concept of formation includes all antagonistic modes of production so Marx did not write any of tribal or of communist forms of property, which appeared in “The German Ideology”, in the second — only one bourgeois. This does not deny the relationship that exists between the concepts of ‘mode of production’ and ‘formation’, but only emphasizes that the antagonistic formations have several features in common. 3 Lenin V. I. Collected works 5th ed. Vol. 26, p. 57. Characteristically, the translation of this phrase in such a concise and refined form VI Lenin did not come immediately. Initially, he gave another translation (Lenin V. I., Vol. 1, p. IX), from which in his later work, he refused.
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 4, 2017 The use of the concept of ‘formation’ in the broadest sense is typical for “Sketches response to a letter V. I. Zasulich” where Marx uses the concept of ‘primary (archaic) formation’ and ‘secondary formation’. “Farming communities, —Marx writes in the third sketch an answer to a letter V. I. Zasulich — being the last phase of the primary social formation, is at the same time, the transition to the secondary phase formation, i. e. the transition from a society, based on common ownership, to a society based on private property. The secondary formation covers, of course, a number of societies based on slavery and serfdom” (Marx & Engels, Vol. 19, p. 419). In the second sketch Marx observed that capitalism is also based on private property that “the people who have it (the capitalist mode of production — R.N.) Is the most developed, both in Europe and in America, seek only to ensure that break the shackles of his replacing capitalist production cooperative production and capitalist property — the highest form of archaic type of property that is owned by the Communist” (Marx & Engels, Vol. 19, pp. 412–413). The history of mankind is divided into three Marx’s ‘big’ formation: primary, based on common ownership (the primitive communal system I ‘Asiatic mode of production’ as a transitional stage to the secondary formation), secondary, based on private property (slavery, feudalism and capitalism) and the communist — social formation (Boroday, Kelle, & Plimak, 1974, pp. 61–75). 2. The key to solving the second problem, the well known position of Engels on the two sides of the production and reproduction of immediate life formulated them in the Preface to the first edition of “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”. “According to the materialist conception, —wrote F. Engels — a defining moment in history is ultimately the production and reproduction of immediate life. But it itself, again, is of two kinds. On the one hand, the production of the means of life: food, clothing, housing, I tools necessary for that; on the other — the production of human procreation. Public order, in which people live a particular historical epoch and a particular country are determined by both kinds of production: stage of development, on the one hand — labour, on the other — the family. The less developed work than the limited numbers of its products, and consequently the wealth of society, the stronger the dependence of the social system of tribal relations. Meanwhile, as part of this, based on the generic structure–society increasingly more developing productivity, and along with it — private property and exchange, differences of wealth, opportunity to use someone else’s labour force and thus the basis of class antagonisms… The old society, resting on tribal associations, explodes in a collision newly formed social classes; its place a new society organized in the state, the lower part of which was no longer tribal, and territorial associations — a society in which family structure completely dominated by the property and which is now free to deploy the class contradictions and class struggle, is the content of the whole of recorded history up to the present time” (Marx & Engels, Vol. 21, pp. 25–26) 4. In light of the statements of Engels on the two sides of the production and reproduction of immediate life becomes clear and the second part of the problem why the secondary (antagonistic) formation is named in the Preface “…to the Critique of Political Economy”, ‘economic community’. As part of the initial formation played an important role of material, social, but not purely economic factors (production of human procreation). As a result of labour within the tribal relations were created preconditions for a class society, for a radical change in the ratio of two sides of the production and reproduction of immediate life when family completely dominated by the system of private property. Marx proceeded from the fact that the transition to communist social formation should also be considered in light of the ratio of the two sides of the production and reproduction of immediate life. After all, the main purpose of this formation and the primary means of achieving it, on presentation of Marx, is the all-round development of personality, which, although it achieve full material well-being, but cannot be reduced only to him. 3. Answering the first question, we essentially got a significant part of the answer to the third: in the above-cited site Preface “…to the Critique of Political Economy”, Marx indicates only antagonistic modes of production. Views on the initial — primitive — production method specified in the 70–60-es. XIX century through research of J. Bachofen, A. Gaktsgauzen, M. Kovalevsky, L. Morgan and others. The concept of ‘Asiatic mode of production’ means a state system of rural agricultural total. The term ‘Asian’ in this context has never had a strictly regional importance and served to designate a universal stage of human 4 A detailed analysis of this provision, see (Nureev, 1984, p. 5).
Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 4, 2017 development. Marx refers to the Asiatic mode of production is not only ancient and medieval East (India, Turkey, Persia, China, etc.), but also countries in Africa (Egypt), the Americas (Mexico, Peru), Europe (the Etruscans, and others). On a certain stage of their development (Ter-Akopian, 1973, pp. 167–220; Nureev, 1976, pp. 205–233; Platonov, 1978, pp. 259–270). Therefore, the term ‘Asian’ is a kind of irrational categories: designating part, he at the same time characterizes the whole. Application along with a meaningful term (‘state system of rural communities’), conditional (‘Asiatic mode of production’) is widespread in science. We have long operate such concepts paired hours as antiquity — slave mode of production, the Middle Ages — feudalism, the new time — capitalism recent times — socialism — the first phase of the communist formation. The specificity here is not that Marx and Engels used the two terms (‘the system of rural communities’ and ‘Asiatic mode of production’), and that the inclusive term is not opposed to the term time and space, geographical. The origin of this term is explained, apparently, by the fact that in today’s Marx and Engels East they found the remains of these public-communal forms. Used by the classics of Marxism, the term ‘antique mode of production’ means the slave mode of production. It should be remembered, however, that under the slave system were slaves although important, is not the only element of a complex socio–economic structure of ancient societies. Division into slaves and slaveholders never covered the whole of society; the number of slaves was never more than half of the population, even in the most developed slaveholding states. Therefore, the term ‘antique mode of production’ as used by Marx and Engels, is of some importance from the point of view of modern science (Nureev, 1979, pp. 22–55). 4. ‘PEOPLE’S’ (VULGARIZED) MARxISM AnD The DeveLoPMenT of MARxISM In BReADTh In a number of countries (and Russia in this case is no exception) primarily occurs mainly spread of Marxism in breadth. As for the spread of Marxist ideas in depth, it is not only in Russia but also in most of the gains was modest. This is due, above all, the intellectual level of students and followers of Karl Marx, as well as uncompromising attitude of the founder of scientific communism to his opponents. “By his political enemies — wrote TuganBaranovsky — Marx was ruthless, but his enemy was made easy — it was not enough to be his follower. One of the saddest pages of biographies of the great economist is its relationship to various prominent people with whom his fate was pushing and with whom he differed in their views. All polemical clashes Marx distinguished extraordinary abundance of personal malice of the enemy and produce a painful impression with his lack of moral tact. It is difficult to specify such other masters in the destruction of the enemy by expressing his most scathing contempt, and it is difficult to specify another writer, albeit a tool to move so often and so readily” (Tugan-Baranovsky, 1996, p. 203). Why did Marx not ‘lucky’ with the followers? Perhaps, above all, because he was looking for them among the working class. “… For the millions of human hearts Marx’s theory of socialist paradise earth meant a new ray of light and a new sense of life. — wrote J. A. Schumpeter — It does not matter that almost all of these millions were not in a position to understand and evaluate the teaching in its true meaning. Such is the fate of all doctrines” (Schumpeter, 1995, p. 37). The few that did not come from the working environment, unfortunately, did not have the fundamental economics. It is no secret that even having studied all his life Engels never received a university education. As rightly observed by J. A. Schumpeter, “intellectually and in particular as a theorist, he was well below Marx. You cannot even be sure that he has always understood the meaning of his teachings. So its interpretation should be approached with caution” (Schumpeter, 1995, p. 78). Even further in the characterization of Engels are Jean-Marie Albertini and Ahmed Sliema. “Friend, colleague, philanthropist, Marx was the first of its vulgarizer. Engels … could indicate simplify, clarify and to avoid what he thought too controversial. In the last period of Marx’s life, almost reclusive, was his mouthpiece. In general, he carried out a reformulation which allowed to spread Marxism” (Albertini & Silem, 1996, p. 104). As for the ‘in-law’ of Karl Marx, he is, in his opinion, they clearly had no luck. Charles Longuet (1839–1903) he calls “the last Proudhonist” and Paul Lafargue (1842–1911) —“the last Blanquist”. Even stands out for its well-read Karl Kautsky (1854–1938) seemed to Marx first ‘shallow mediocrity’. However, the impact of popularisers and vulgar underestimated. They have contributed to the spread of folk Marxism, which is a unique social