Научная статья на тему 'The Historical Fate of the ‘First Great Discovery’ of Marx'

The Historical Fate of the ‘First Great Discovery’ of Marx Текст научной статьи по специальности «История и археология»

CC BY
286
63
i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.
Ключевые слова
materialist conception of history / ‘people’s’ (vulgarized) Marxism / ‘academic’ Marxism / материалистическая концепция истории / «народный» (вульгарный) марксизм / «академический» марксизм

Аннотация научной статьи по истории и археологии, автор научной работы — Rustem Nureev

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.

i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.
iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.
i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.

Историческая судьба «Первого великого открытия» Маркса

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.

Текст научной работы на тему «The Historical Fate of the ‘First Great Discovery’ of Marx»

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 [email protected]

SPIN PMH^ 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 Social-Democratic literature of the late XlX-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

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» [email protected]

SPIN РИНЦ: 9366-0174 ORCID:0000-0003-1407-2657 ResearcherlD: P-9648-2015 Scopus AuthorlD: 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.

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 sacred-ness 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

1-^-► Q

Qo

Fig. 1. Value as the basis of the price level (according to Marx). The interpretation from the perspective

of neoclassical economists

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 difficult1. 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 class2. 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 Je-vons (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.

in 1874—Leon Walras (1834-1910). Later, there were works Eugen Bohm-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

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 Econ-omy"—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.

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).

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 Tugan-Baranovsky — 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

phenomenon, comparable only to that of the spread of world religions? It is no accident the initial task was the first popularizers of systematization of Marxism. In 1893, an article by F. Mehring (1846-1919) "Historical Materialism" in 1895 book by G. Plekh-anov (1856-1938), "The Development of the Monist View of History", in 1896—the work of A. Labriola (1843-1904) "Sketches of the materialist conception of history". All of them came from the more economically depressed areas of southern or eastern Europe. All of them corresponded with Engels, who had a decisive influence on the formation of their Marxist views.

The work of Engels' "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" had a great impact on the social-democratic literature. Engels' ideas are reflected in the book by P. Lafargue, "Property and its origin" (1895), a monograph of Rosa Luxemburg (1870-1919), "Introduction to Political Economy" (written in 1907-1913 and published in 1925) and other works. The authors of these monographs have focused their attention mainly on the justification of materialism in the study of relations and historically transient nature of private property. In this case, property was considered, as a rule, not through a system of industrial relations (as in "Capital" Marx), and was treated as a separate relationship (ownership of the items for personal use, ownership of the means of production, ownership of capital) (Lafargue, 1959, pp. 39-45).

In promoting the views of Karl Marx, Paul Lafargue and F. Mehring — rightly observes B.A. Chagin — mainly stay on the justification of the thesis according to the political and ideological superstructure of society in its economic base. Paul Lafargue, in this regard, even spoke of the materialist conception of history as an 'economic materialism'. In this regard, and for Mehring was characteristic known straight-ness, as indicated by Engels after reading Mering's "Legends of Lessing" (Chagin, 1977, p. 16).

Any departure from narrow economic objectivism perceived not only academic researchers, but also social democratic theorists as a departure from the historical materialism, the rejection of the basic precepts of Marxism. An illustrative example — the criticism of the provisions of Engels on the two sides of the production and reproduction of immediate life (production of the means of life and production of human beings), the nature of their relationship in the early stages of development of human society (Marx & Engels, Vol. 21, pp. 25-26), historians and

sociologists P. Veisengrun (Germany), N. Kareev and Mikhailovsky (Russian Empire), and later the German Social-Democrats Karl Kautsky and G. Kunov found this remark of Engels forced concession, a departure from the materialism, made under the influence of the book L. G. Morgan (Veisengrun, 1898, p. 170; Kareev, 1894, p. 601; Mikhailovsky, 1894, pp. 108-109; Kautsky, 1923, p. 119; Kunov, 1930, pp. 121-124). "The production people — taught K. Kautsky Engels — a factor not a production of the means of subsistence, and depending on it" (Kautsky, 1923, p. 119). In the 40s of XX century. This criticism has been moved to the Marxist literature (Svetlov, 1940, p. 58).

The mechanistic rationale for materialism in cognition the socio-economic phenomena, the emphasis on the study of history as a natural historical process have led to an underestimation of social practice and its role in the transformation and development of society. Understanding of history as a result of human activity was in the shade. This is typical not only for Kautsky, but also to some extent for the largest among the Social Democrats philosopher — G.V. Plekhanov.

Describing the materialist conception of history, G. V. Plekhanov always tried to find the ultimate cause of social development. "If we wanted to briefly express the opinion of Marx and Engels on the attitude of the now famous 'base' to the equally famous 'superstructure' —wrote Plekhanov — then we have got to this:

1) the state of the productive forces;

2) due to their economic relations;

3) the socio-political system, which has grown pas this economic 'basis';

4) defines the part of the economy itself, but part of growing up over the past her socio-political structure of the psyche of public rights;

5) different ideologies, reflecting the properties of the mind (Plekhanov, 1956-1958, Vol. 3, pp. 179-180).

Plekhanov's formula materialistic, but this is not enough dialectical materialism. And it is not even a single unclear (state of the productive forces, etc.). The fact is that not shown the dialectic relationship of the productive forces and relations of production, base and superstructure, the role of the class struggle, is not reflected legal institutions unilaterally presented forms of social consciousness. It is not surprising that the wording of this brief gone to such fundamental concepts of Marxism as a way of production and socio-economic system. Failure to

understand the relationship of mutually productive forces and relations of production are put in front of G. Plekhanov question because of the termination of the productive forces. He found such a fundamental principle in the geographic environment. Of course, Plekhanov was far from the geographic determinism and knew that "the geographical environment influences people through the public" and that "the geographical environment very different effect on the Germans of Caesar, than it is to affect the present inhabitants of England." Nevertheless, he believed that "the development of productive forces is itself determined by the properties of the geographical environment surrounding people" (Plekhanov, 1956-1958, Vol. 1, p. 689).

It is thanks to Plekhanov look at the tools as the defining moment of the productive forces was widespread. Including in the productive forces of the subject of work, it highlights the importance of tools. "That is why, he writes, or rather will not talk about the development of tools, and in general about the development of the means of production, the productive forces, although it is certain that the most important role in this development belongs, or at least owned up to now (before the important chemical industries) is the instruments of labour" (Plekhanov, 1956-1958, Vol. 1, p. 609). Absolute role of the means of production objectively contributed to an underestimation of workers as the main productive forces.

Against objectivist interpretation of Marxism and its reduction to economic materialism made A. Bogdanov (1873-1929). Unlike Plekhanov central concept of the philosophy of Marxism A. Bogdanov believed the practice, activity and living labour (Bogdanov, 1913, pp. 197-198). Sharing the views of A. Bogdanov, A. Lunacharsky (1878-1933) believed that his philosophy — a return to the "real non vulgarized, non Plekhanovizated Marx" (Quoted by Pustarnakov, 1974, p. 260).

Curiously however, that the second generation of Marxists came from Eastern and Central Europe. It is been more prepared Marxists who wrote his major work before the First World War. Practically, this generation was to play a decisive role in leading the national working parties. These people were not armchair scientists. It was a generation that sought to unite the Marxist theory with the practice of the labour movement. They needed a theory to justify the action. Many of them are in their own interpreted the teachings of Marx, Rudolf Hilferding

(1877-1941), jean Jaurès (1859-1914), Otto Bauer (1881-1938), Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin, 1870-1924), Lev Bronstein (Trotsky, 1879-1940), Nikolai Bukha-rin (1888-1938). And thanks to their work, millions of people have taken the analysis of reality, directly or indirectly arising out of Marxism. It has become one of the most important factors behind the development of Marxism in the twentieth century. In the early twentieth century, there are works that try to develop Marxism in the 'industry' (Kautsky's work on the agrarian or O. Bauer, the national questions—or 'national' (Lenin) direction. In the second decade, and there are more complex works that try to reflect the new phenomena of capitalism. This is the first work on imperialism, "Finance capital" R. Hilferding (1910), "The accumulation of capital" Rosa Luxemburg (1913), "Imperialism and world economy" N. Bukharin (1915), "Imperialism, the highest stage capitalism" by V. I. Lenin (1917). Despite obvious progress in this area, they were not a direct continuation of "Capital" of Marx. They did not develop a system of categories and laws of "Capital", as supplemented or elaborated on some trends noted by Marx and, unfortunately, were far below the level. The fact is that neither George Plekhanov, nor Karl Kautsky, or even Vladimir Lenin did not understand the dialectics of Karl Marx's "Capital". This is clearly seen in their work: "Our Differences" (1885) G. Plekhanov, "The Agrarian Question" (1899) by K. Kautsky, "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" (1899) by Vladimir Lenin (for details see Nureev, 1999, pp. 87-112) and "The Accumulation of Capital" (1913), R. Luxemburg. No wonder that in 1914 Lenin writes that «one cannot quite understand the "Capital" of Marx, and I especially his head, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, none of the Marxists understood "Capital" Marx half later!" (Lenin, Vol. 29, p. 162).

Of course, Marx was not to blame for the fact that his students have written, but they developed a tradition of Marxist activism and voluntarism. After all, this is Marx believed that it is not only to explain the world, but to change it, to "expropriate the expropriators" (Marx & Engels, Vol. 3, p. 4 and Vol. 23, p. 773). Of this revolutionary activism grew and theory of constant revolution of Leon Trotsky, and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the interpretation of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, and economic voluntarism Eugene A. Preobrazhensky (1886-1937), and the practice of building socialism in one country

Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Stalin, 18791953) and the cultural Revolution of Mao Tse-tung (1893-1976) and many other ultra-revolutionary concept. Rather schematic development vulgarized Marxism associated with the preparation and justification of the revolutionary transformation of the world can be represented as follows (see Fig. 3).

5. 'ACADEMIC' (WEST) MARXISM OR THE MARXISM DEVELOPMENT IN DEEP

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, pp. 350-351). Regarding the surplus value we have seen in the second section. This theory has not made much of an impression on Western economic science — in the XIX — the first half of the twentieth century. But maybe things have changed over the years?

Increased interest in whether the economic teachings of Marx in the academic neoclassical science developed countries in the late twentieth century? Rather no than yes. He was on the periphery of mainstream economic thought that went the other way. The development of the Marxist analysis of capitalism has certain achievements associated with the specification and further development of the theory of capital accumulation — the study of the economic cycles of overproduction, the theory of imperialism, globalization of the economy and to arise in this context, the problems of relations between the center and the periphery (Fig. 4).

A completely different situation occurred with the first discovery of Marx. The interest in it over the years increases rather than fall. New generations of Marxists: Gyorgy Lukacs (1885-1971), Karl Korsch (1886-1961), Antonio Gramsci (1881-1937), Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), Max Horkheimer (18951973), G. Cases Volpe (1897-1968), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), Henri Lefebvre (1905-1991), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), Louis Althusser (1918-1990)—have created a very different intellectual environment for the development of Marxism. Since the early 20-es of European Marxism increasingly shifting to the West in Germany, France and Italy. Although the first generation of Marxists (G. Lukacs, K. Korsch and A. Gramsci) were originally the ma-

jor political leaders of their parties, they gradually moved away from practical affairs, concentrating on issues of theory. This is even more characteristic of the younger generation. Being unique personalities, they could not put their creativity into the Procrustean bed of the Communist International. In the 20's the first time there is a center of Marxist studies in a capitalist country — the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, who has maintained regular contacts with the Marx-Engels in Moscow. The result of this collaboration was the first publication of the Marks-Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA). The first volume was published in Frankfurt in 1927.

After the Nazis came to power in 1933, the Institute of Social Studies moved to the United States and developed in the framework of Columbia University in New York, and after the war returns to Frankfurt (in 1949-50.). The activities of this Institute were aimed at depoliticizing the theoretical studies of the theory of separation actually contributed to the deepening of the policy of the Marxist analysis. However, the focus of research of Western Marxists was not economic and philosophical issues. Marx was a philosopher among economists economist among philosophers. It is curious that the first component of his work (philosophy) was deeper and more interesting for the children than the second (the economy). "Ironically, Western Marxism as a whole has developed in the opposite direction of the evolution of Marx. If the founder of historical materialism gradually went from philosophy to politics and then to the economy as a major field of study, the followers of the schools that emerged after 1920 were more likely to move away from the economy and politics, and focus on the philosophy, practically doing what is particularly Marx was interested in at the time of maturity ..." (Anderson, 1991, pp. 64-65).

After the burst of radical leftist sentiment in the late 1960s, a new interest in the unorthodox Marxism among the alternative mainstream trends (Rait, 2007). The fact that, at first glance, it was in the shade, it gradually became interesting, however, is generally more philosophers, sociologists, historians, political scientists and other representatives of related disciplines than economists.

Methodologists "Capital" interested as the first successful experience of the dialectic to political economy. The new principles of organizing categories are interesting to future generations. It was interesting all: the formal logic as a prerequisite

iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.

and the moment of the dialectic, and the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete in "Capital" of Marx, and the role of antinomies in the learning process and their reflection in the economic system, and "Capital" as an open system of knowledge.

Historians of thought "Capital" has always attracted both criticism of political economy as a model of respect for the history of economic thought as a model of scrupulous use of sources as an attempt to write the history of political economy, following the pattern of the Hegel's "History of Philosophy" (that is how the story of the market economy, 'taken as a necessity', as history, replicating in the development of the subject.)

Sociologists have drawn the ideas of Marx's basic forms of economic relations and the stages of development of the person: the dialectic interaction between nature and society, the unity of property and labor, and the relationship of the individual and the community in which Karl Marx distinguished the following stages of development: a personal relationship, personal independence, based on a material depends, free individual (for details, see Nureev, 1983)—the full development of each individual as a condition for the development of all, the concept of all-round development of the individual ('beyond the material production') as a prerequisite and an element of modern post-industrial society5.

For specialists in economic history and comparative linguistics is of great interest method unity of the historical and logical, interconnection feasibility and socio-economic analysis, the dialectic of productive forces and relations of production6, formational and civilizational unity of approaches history as a process of natural history, and as a result of human activities, thus more political economy in the broad than in the narrow sense of the word7.

5 In this context, it is difficult to agree with Tugan-Baranovsky, that "in the history of philosophy for our Doctor of Philosophy is almost no place" (Tugan-Baranovsky, 1996, p. 203).

6 "Despite the fact that the history of technology and communication technology with the economic process is not written enough great literature, this issue is essentially remained outside the body of a theory. The exceptions are the works of Karl Marx, who tried to combine technological change with institutional changes. Development of Marx on the relationship of the productive forces (by which he usually knew the state of technology) to industrial relations (by which he meant the various aspects of human organization, and especially property rights) was a pioneering effort to connection limits and limitation of technology to the limits of limits of human organization" (North, 1997, p. 168).

7 "He was the first economist of high rank who has seen con-

sistently and who taught others how economic theory can be

For institutionalists definite interest to a new approach to the analysis of economics and law, first implemented in full in "Capital".

Marx actually acts as a precursor of institution-alism. It is a new approach to the analysis of the economic nature of private property, and the approach of a great classical political economy, and on the radical left critics of this type of property P. J. Proudhon. Of course, the Marxist theory and new institutional property rights have both unity and significant differences. But so far, it is of interest Realized by Marx analysis of alienation and fetishism in a market economy, and the commodification of persons personification of things.

Marx and undoubted contribution to the establishment of the theory of input-output balance. Of course, Marx here as a student of F. Quesnay. Curiously, his abstract and concrete theory of reproduction were more versatile than the schemes of Lenin, who did not stand the test of time and predetermined exaggerated development of the first units to the detriment of the latter. Not understood from the perspective of neoclassical equilibrium theory Marxist theory of economic crisis had a peculiar development in the theory of JA Schumpeter (1939).

Have any interest in Marx academic science in the developing countries? More yes than no. In a crisis, neoclassical economics at the periphery of the capitalist world postulates of rational behaviour, which are based on modern micro-and macroeconomics, barely functional. Here the obvious pros and cons of capitalism8 and it reflects the development of neoclassical economics. There are obvious problems of poverty and wealth is apparent static nature of modern Western science. From this more clearly visible flaws of modern economic and mathematical modelling, based on rational choice.

Marx interest wherever made to find alternatives to neo-classical. Not surprisingly Marxist influence on the young historical school (W. Sombart) and Austrian economics (E. Bohm-Bawerk), a traditional (T. Veblen, K. Polanyi, G. Myrdal) and the

turned into a historical analysis and a historical narrative can be turned into histoire-raisonnee (justification stories — in french)" (Schumpeter, 1995, pp. 83-84). 8 "We ... are suffering not only from the development of capitalist production, but also from a lack of development — Marx wrote in "Capital".—Along with the disasters of the modern era oppresses us a number of inherited disasters that exist due to the fact that they still languish ancient, exhausted themselves modes of production and related antiquated social and political relations." (Marx &Engels, Vol. 23, p. 9).

new institutionalism (Law and Economics), a new economic history (North, 1986; Rosenberg, 1974), and evolutionary economics (J.A. Schumpeter), Post-Keynesian economics (J. Robinson, P. Sraffa) and the radical leftist economics (P. Baran, A. Emmanuel Wallerstein).

Thus, the historical fate of Marxism were far been mixed. The extreme popularity of the theory, an

attempt to immediately and directly applicable in practice, unfortunately, played tricks on her and was not addressed for the benefit of mankind. Hopefully, the calm, the academic study of Marxism will at least partially rehabilitated in the eyes of his contemporaries and successors, and to use its potential to solve the problems that confronts the historical development of mankind.

References

1. Albertini, J.-M. & Silem, A. (1996). Ponimat'ekonomicheskie teorii. Malen'kiispravochnik bol'shikh techenii [Understand the economic theory. Small handbook of large currents]. Moskva, Russia: Aristei.

2. Anderson, P. (1991). Razmyshleniya o zapadnom marksizme [Reflections on Western Marxism]. Moskva, Russia: Inter-Verso.

3. Bagaturia, G. A., Vygodskiy, V. S. (1976). Ekonomicheskoe nasledieKarlaMarksa (istoriya, soderzhanie, metodologiya) [The economic legacy of Karl Marx (history, content, methodology)]. Moskva, Russia: Mysl'.

4. Berdyaev, N. A. (1990). Istoki i smysl russkogo kommunizma [Origin of Russian communism]. Moskva, Russia: Nauka.

5. Bogdanov, A. (1913). Filosofiyazhivogo opyta. Populyarnye ocherki [The philosophy of living experience. Popular essays]. St. Petersburg, Russia.

6. Boroday, Yu. M., Kelle, V. Zh. & Plimak E. G. (1974). Nasledie Karla Marksa i problemy teorii obshchestvenno-eko-nomicheskoi informatsii [The legacy of Karl Marx and problems of the theory of socio-economic information]. Moskva, Russia: Politizdat.

7. Chagin, B.A. (1977). Razrabotka G. V. Plekhanovym obshchesotsiologicheskoi teorii marksizma [Development by G. V. Plekhanov of the general sociological theory of Marxism]. Leningrad, Russia: Nauka.

8. Cherkovets, V. N. (Ed.). (1971). Dva podrazdeleniya obshchestvennogo proizvodstva [Two subdivisions of social production]. Moskva, Russia: Mysl'.

9. Cherkovets, V. N. (Ed.). (1988-1989). Vsemirnaya istoriya ekonomicheskoi mysli. T. 1-6 [The worldwide history of economic thought. Vols. 1-6]. Vol. 2 & 3. Moskva: Mysl'.

10. Hessin, N.V. (1968). V. I. Lenin o sushchnosti i osnovnykh priznakakh tovarnogo proizvodstva [V. I. Lenin on the essence and main characteristics of commodity production]. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.

11. Ilyenkov, E. V. (1960). Dialektika abstraktnogo i konkretnogo v «Kapitale» K. Marksa [The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx's "Capital"]. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk.

12. Kareev, N. I. (1894). Ekonomicheskii materializm v istorii [Economic materialism in history]. VestnikEvropy, Vol. 4, [kn. 7/8, iyul'/avgust].

13. Kautsky, K. (1923). Razmnozhenie i razvitie v prirode i obshchestve. Sochineniya [Reproduction and development in nature and society. Collected works]. Vol. XII. Moskva, Russia: Gosizdat.

14. Kogan, A.M. (1983). Vtvorcheskoi laboratorii Karla Marksa [In the creative laboratory of Karl Marx]. Moskva, Russia: Mysl'.

15. Kunov, G. (1930). Marksova teoriya istoricheskogo progressa obshchestva igosudarstva [Marx's theory of historical progress of society and the state]. Vol. 2. Moskva, Russia.

16. Kuz'min, V. P. (1976). Printsip sistemnosti v teorii i metodologii K. Marksa [Systems principle in the theory and methodology of Karl Marx]. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury.

17. Lafargue, P. (1959). «Za» i «protiv» kommunizma. Sobstvennost' i ee proiskhozhdenie ['For' and 'against' communism. The property and its origins]. Moskva, Russia: Gospolitizdat.

18. LeninskiisbornikXXI. (1933). [Lenin Collection XXII]. Moskva, Russia: Partizdat.

19. Leninskii sbornikXXXVIII. (1975). [Lenin Collection XXXVIII]. Moskva, Russia: Politizdat, 1975.

20. Lenin, V. I. (1967-1975). Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. [Collected works]. 5th ed. Vols. 1-55. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury.

21. Luxembourg, R. (1934). Nakoplenie kapitala [The accumulation of capital]. 5th ed. Vols. 1 & 2. Moskva, Russia: Gosudarstvennoe sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe izdatel'stvo.

22. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1955-1981). Sochineniya [Collected works]. 2nd ed. Vols. 1-50. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury.

23. Marx, K. (1939). Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie. Rohenrwurf, 1857-1858. Marx-Engels-Lenin-Institut. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'stvo inostrannoi literatury.

24. Mikhailovsky, N. K. (1894). Literatura i zhizn' [Literature and life].Russkoe bogatstvo, 1.

25. Nikolai-on (Daniel'son Nikolai Frantsevich). (1893). Ocherki nashego poreformennogo obshchestvennogo khozyaistva [Sketches of our post-reform of the social economy]. St. Peterburg: Tipografiya A. Benke.

26. North, D. (1997). Instituty, institutsional'nye izmeneniya i funktsionirovanie ekonomiki. [Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance]. Moskva: Fond ekonomicheskoi knigi «NAChALA».

27. North, D. (1986). Is it Worth Making Sense of Marx? Inquiry, 29, 57-64.

28. Nureev, R. M. (1979). Antichnaya politika: kratkie politiko-ekonomicheskie kharakteristiki [Antique policy: a brief political-economic characteristics]. In Yu. Rachinskii (Ed.), Ekonomicheskaya rol'gosudarstva v usloviyakh antago-nisticheskikh sposobovproizvodstva [Economic role of the state in terms of antagonistic modes of production]. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'stvo MGU.

29. Nureev, R. M. (1999). «Razvitie kapitalizma v Rossii»: pervyi leninskii shag ot skhematizma k real'nosti (voz-vrashchayas' k napechatannomu) [Development of Capitalism in Russia: Lenin's first step from schematics to reality (returning to the published)]. In Yu. Osipov, O. Inshakov & E. Zotova, (Eds.), Razvitie kapitalizma v Rossii — sto let spustya (87-111) [The Development of Capitalism in Russia — 100 years later]. Moskva & Volgograd: Lomonosov Moscow State University & Volgograd State University.

30. Nureev, R. M. (1984). F. Engels ob osnovakh periodizatsii pervobytno-obshchinnogo stroya [Engels about the basics of periodization of primitive society]. VestnikMoskovskogo universiteta. SeriaEkonomika, 5.

31. Nureev, R. M. (1983). K. Marks ob osnovnykh formakh proizvodstvennykh otnoshenii i razvitii lichnosti [Marx about the main forms of production and the development of personality]. Voprosy filosofii, 6.

32. Nureev, R. M. (1976). Priznaki osnovnogo proizvodstvennogo otnosheniya i diskussiya ob aziatskom sposobe proizvodstva [The features of basic industrial relation and the debate about the Asiatic mode of production]. In A. Smirnov (Ed.), Mekhanizm funktsionirovaniya proizvodstvennykh otnoshenii v usloviyakh razvitogo sotsializ-ma (205-233) [The mechanism of functioning of industrial relations in the conditions of developed socialism]. Moskva, Russia: Institut ekonomiki RAN.

33. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovskii, D. N. (1923 [1989]). Vospominaniya. V. Pamyati pochivshikh. 2. Nikolai Ivanovich Ziber [Memories. V. The memory of the deceased. 2. Nikolai Ivanovich Sieber]. In Ovsyaniko-Kulikovskii, D. H. Litera-turno-kriticheskie raboty. Iz "Istorii russkoi intelligentsii". Vospominaniya [Literary-critical work. From "History of the Russian intelligentsia". Memories]. Vols. 1-2. Vol. 2. Moskva, Russia: Khudozhestvennaya literatura.

34. Pashkov, A. I. (1960). Ekonomicheskie raboty V.I. Lenina 90-khgodov [V. I. Lenin's economic works of 90-is]. Moskva, Russiya: Izdatel'stvo Sotsekgiz.

35. Pervonachal'nyi variant «Kapitala» (Ekonomicheskie rukopisi K. Marksa 1857-1859godov). (1987) [The initial version of "Capital" (Marx's Economic Manuscripts 1857-1859)]. Moskva, Russia: Politizdat.

36. Platonov, D. N. (1978). Problemy aziatskogo sposoba proizvodstva v rabotakh K. Marksa i F. Engel'sa [Problems of Asiatic mode of production' in the works of Marx and Engels]. Ekonomicheskie nauki, 1.

37. Plekhanov, G. V. (1956-1958). Izbrannye filosofskieproizvedeniya [Selected philosophical works]. Vols. 1-5. Moskva, Russia: Gospolitizdat, Sotsekgiz

38. Pustarnakov, V. F. (2004, December). Paradoksy v istorii marksizma v Rossii [The paradoxes in the history of Marxism in Russia]. Al'manakh «Vostok»», 12(24).

39. Pustarnakov, V. F. (1974). «Kapital» K. Marksa i filosofskaya mysl'v Rossii (kon. XIX — nach. XX v.) ["Capital" of Karl Marx and philosophical thought in Russia (the late XIX — beg. XX C.)]. Moskva, Russia: Nauka.

40. Wright, E. O. (2007). Chto takoe analiticheskii marksizm? [What is analytical Marxism?]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 9.

41. Reuel, A. L. (1956). Russkaya ekonomicheskaya mysl' 60-70-kh godov XIX veka i marksizm [Russian economic thought 60-70-es of the XIX century and Marxism]. Moskva, Russia: Gospolitizdat.

42. Rosenberg, Nathan. (1974). Karl Marx on the Economic Role of Science, Journal of Political Economy, 82.

43. Rosental', M. M. (Ed.). (1971). Istoriya marksistkoi dialektiki. Ot vozniknoveniya marksizma do leninskogo etapa [History of Marxist dialectics. From the emergence of Marxism to the Leninian stage]. Moskva, Russia: Mysl'.

44. Rosental', M. M. (1967). Dialektika «Kapitala» Karla Marksa [The dialectic of Karl Marx's "Capital"]. 2nd ed. Moskva: Mysl'.

45. Rosher, W. (1874). Geschichte der National-Ökonomik in Deutschland. München: Oldenbourg.

46. Schumpeter, J. A. (1995). Kapitalizm, sotsializm i demokratiya [Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy]. Moskva, Russia: Ekonomika.

47. Shkredov, V. P. (1973). Metod issledovaniya sobstvennosti v «Kapitale» K. Marksa [Research method of property in Karl Marx's "Capital"]. Moskva, Russia: Izdatebstvo Moskovskogo universiteta

48. Smirnov, I. K. (1984). Metod issledovaniya ekonomicheskogo dvizheniya kapitalizma v «Kapitale» K. Marksa [The method of investigation of economic movement of capitalism in Marx's "Capital"]. Leningrad, Russia: Izdatel'stvo LGU.

49. Svetlov, V. (1940). O knige Engel'sa «Proiskhozhdenie sem'i, chastnoi sobstvennosti i gosudarstva» [About Engels' book "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"]. Bol'shevik, 24.

50. Ter-Akopian, N. B. (1973). Marks i Engel's ob aziatskom sposobe proizvodstva i zemledel'cheskoi ob-shchine [Marx and Engels on the Asiatic mode of production and farming communities]. In A. Malysh (Ed.), Iz istorii marksizma i mezhdunarodnogo rabochego dvizheniya [From the history of Marxism and the labour movement, pp. 167-220]. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury.

51. Tsagolov, N. A. (Ed.). (1981). Razvitie politicheskoi ekonomii v SSSR i ee aktual'nye zadachi na sovremennom etape [The development of political economy in the Soviet Union and its current tasks at the present stage]. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'stvo MGU.

52. Tugan-Baranovsky, M. (1901). Studien zur Theorie und Geschichte der Handelskrisen in England. Jena, Germany: Fischer.

53. Tugan-Baranovsky, M. (1894). Promyshlennyi krizis v sovremennoi Anglii, ikh prichiny i vliyanie na narodnuyu zhizn' [Industrial crises in modern Britain, causes and impact on people's lives]. St. Petersburg, Russia: Tipografiya I. N. Skorokhodova.

54. Tugan-Baranovsky, M. (1998). Osnovy politicheskoi ekonomii [The foundations of political economy]. Moskva, Russia: ROSSPEN.

55. Tugan-Baranovsky, M. (1898). Russkaya fabrika v proshlom i nastoyashchem: Istoriko-ekonomicheskoe issle-dovanie [Russian factory in the past and the present: Historical and economic study]. Tom I. Istoricheskoe razvitie russkoi fabriki v XIX veke [Vol. I. The historical development of Russian factories in the XIX century]. St. Petersburg, Russia.

56. Tugan-Baranovsky, M. (1899). Osnovnaya oshibka abstraktnoi teorii kapitalizma Marksa [The fundamental error of the Marxian abstract theory of capitalism]. Nauchnoe obozrenie, 5.

57. Tugan-Baranovsky, M. (1996). Kluchshemu budushchemu. Sbornik sotsial'no-filosofskikh proizvedenii [For a better future. Collection of socio-philosophical works]. Moskva, Russia: Rossiiskaya politicheskaya entsik-lopediya (ROSSPEN).

58. Vazyulin, V. A. (1968). Logika «Kapitala» K. Marksa [The logic of Marx's "Capital"]. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'stvo MGU.

59. Veisengrun, P. (1898). Die Entwicklungsgesetze der Menscheit. Leipzig, Germany.

60. Vodolazov, G. G. (1967). Ot Chernyshevskogo k Plekhanovu [From Chernyshevsky to Plekhanov]. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'stvo MGU.

61. Vorontsov, V. V. (1893). Nashi napravleniya [Our destinations]. St. Petersburg, Russia.

62. Vorontsov, V. V. (1882). Sud'by kapitalizma v Rossii [The fate of capitalism in Russia]. St. Petersburg, Russia.

63. Vygodskiy, V. S. (1975). Ekonomicheskoe obosnovanie teorii nauchnogo kommunizma [The economic foundation of the theory of scientific communism]. Moskva, Russia: Politizdat.

64. Vygodskiy, V. S. (1970). K istorii sozdaniya «Kapitala» [The history of creation of "Capital"]. Moskva, Russia: Mysl'.

65. Wheen, Francis. (2003). Karl Marks [Karl Marx]. Moskva, Russia: AST Publishing house.

66. Zweynert, J. (2007). Istoriya ekonomicheskoi mysli v Rossii. 1805-1905 [History of economic thought in Russia. 1805-1905]. Moskva, Russia: Izdatel'skii dom GU VShE.

Fig. 5. The development of revolutionary activism and 'people's' Marxism

Source: Albertini, J.-M., Si Lern, A. (1983). Comprendre les théories économiques. Paris, France: Seuil, p. 114.

Cambridge School (Wing)

SISMONDY and the theory of under consumption

KARL MARX

-►KEYNES

The role of the peasantry in

The role of under consumption in crisis

/ \

DOBB Accept of Keynes" Approach

American Marxism BARAN & SUIZI

MAO TSE-TUNG

And Theory of 3 Worlds

I

DUMENILE

MENDEL Trotskiy's analysis of Crisis

iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.

Development Analysis

L. LEBRUN F. PERRU

Uneven development and exchange S. AMIN & A. EMMANUE

From structural analysis to Marxism

S. PALLUA ►JEAN DE BERNIS_ C. FURTADO

Cambridge School (Wing)

r

HOBSON The 1 st analvsis of Imperialism

R. HILFERDING

Imperialism as a stage of Capitalism

STALIN Modern problems of Socialism

KONDRATIEV The Cycles of Industrial Revolution

State Monopoly Capitalism

C. BETTELHEIM From orthodox analysis to Mao's analysis

Robbery of ► 3rd World R. JALLY

Eco "development I. SASH

The Analysis of Communistic Parties of USSR and France KOZLOV BOKKARA HERZOG

American radicals

Super Capitalism —

X

The relationship between the under consumption and

TUGAN-BARANOVSKIY JAKOT

\

E. VARGA Real Money Savings

The role of structural contradictions LORENZI AGLIETTA

/

Empirical Analysis and INSEE

Fig. 4. Academic Marxism: development of capitalism analysis

Source: ALbertini, J.-M., Silem, A. (1983). Comprendre les théories économiques. Paris, France: Seuil, p. 132.

i Надоели баннеры? Вы всегда можете отключить рекламу.