In 1991 when the Soviet Bloc fell, Karl Marx’s world and model fell too allowing the coming of socially friendly capitalism in China and in all former Soviet Bloc’s countries, but the economic books have not to my knowledge been rewritten to reflect that reality.
So if you ask what is socially friendly micro-economics or red microeconomics (e.g. the theory of the socially friendly firm or consumers) or what is socially friendly macroeconomics or red macroeconomics (e.g. theories about socially friendly economies or socially friendly capitalism), the answers may not come right away….
There is now a knowledge gap, the Karl Marx’s paradigm was quickly substituted by socially friendly capitalism creating a socio-economic sustainability or red economics sustainability gap as the paradigm death was so fast that the theory has not been able to catch up; and neither in the former socialist countries nor in the old capitalist countries they have thought about how to close this theory-practice knowledge gap yet….Is there a text book about socially friendly or red microeconomics(e.g. the theory of the socially friendly firm or consumer) or a text book about socially friendly or red macroeconomics(e.g. Theories of socially friendly capitalism)?... not to my knowledge….
I have more work in this line of thinking to be published in the near future to do my part in closing this knowledge gap.
What are universities big and small all over the world doing about this? Can they see this? Is there a need to rewrite/correct micro and macroeconomic text books to reflect socially friendly capitalism theory? What do you think?
Dear Lucio,
in the eyes of economics capitalism is always "socially friendly" because he provides affluence and growth. But Marx yet showed, that the accumilation of capital once destroys the competition and therefore as well broad affluence and growth.
We can see this in the car industry or in search engines yet where only one or two players dominate the whole world market.
The "green growth" repeats the growth cycles of steam, electricity, transport and communication - unless few companies stay.
If you want we can combine your project with my work on Social Capital, especally bridging social capital that allows a sharing economy.
A sharing economy driven by bridging social capital such as trust, solidarity, helpfulness, altruism, friendliness and hospitality may be the future beyond the outdated view of "Systems" that no longer exist.
Sharing can end the accumiliation and concenration of capital - and therefore protect local and regional markets and their social benefits.
What do you think?
Best regards your Alexander Dill
Dear Lucio,
I think that the main reason why textbooks do not carry the Marxian program as dead or replaced is because practitioners hold on to the methodology that the program has degenerated with the experience of the Former Soviet Union. Marxists are still working with that program to make it progressive. Marxists have thick-skin, and are willing to replace only elements in the protective belt of their program, and not elements in the hard-core of marxism. Also, what you characterize as a "socially friendly" appears as an extreme form of Samuelson's "mixed economy". Further, it is hard to imagine a home for red macro or microeconomics since its reality will require a mixture of nomological and dialectical elements.
The gap, rather a gulf, has not been created by the death of Marxian model. It has been forced through the cold blooded murder of the ideas of Karl Marx by that blatant self-interest which was eulogised by Adam Smith as lying within economic men and which has been ruling the world of political and economic dimensions since long.
The main postulate of Marxian analysis that the one who labours ought to get the fruit of its labour and no one ought to be the master of other's labour was and is the greatest enemy of the self-interested economic man whether a green, a red, a white or a black; they are all capitalists but of different hues and shades.
Best regards
Dear Allexander, Lall and Mohammad, thankis for your thoughts.
With respect to your comment Alexander, you uncontiously probably touched on three different paradigms: pure capitalism, green markets, and sustainability markets, except the Karl Marx's paradigm the goal of this question, but I can share these...
a) Economics capitalism---> or pure capitalism a la Adam Smith's traditional market is dead, together with the economic man formally since 2012/RIO/UNCSD;
b) this led to the sudden birth of eco-economic markets or green markets with a green growth goal and when this was done a sudden paradigm shift took place from traditional market to green markets and with this the curren paradigm shift knowledge gap: the green market knowledge gap, now run by the green economic man....because of the knowlege gap the economic man has been trying to do the job of the green economic man as there is no theory of the environmentally responsible firm/consumer(no green macroeconomics) and no theory of the environmentally friendly economy....This is a big thing....implemented global programs like global warming and the sustainable development 17 goals agenda under this knowlege gap....Under green markets we should ask something like: Is there a green trickle down effect?, do Arrows's imposibility theory and theorems still work the same or can it work when ranking goes of the roof due co-dependent decision making?....how different is green pricing from pure market pricing?......and how this affects the micro and macro of the green economy?....
c) with respec to bringing social capital or social aims as you said it can not be done neither under the pure economy model or under the green market model, they are socially unfriendly by design both of them assumed social externality neutrality.....If they ever are pressed to internalized social concerns as they have now been pressed to internalized environmental concerns, then you are creating another paradigm shift, one towards sustainability markes....only sustainabile markes are socially and environmentally friendly at the same time......
Have a nice day
Lall, with respect to your comments, perhaps you are right, it is hard to led your paradigms go, Thomas Khunn(1970) said so....but my take is different:
Marx's camp and Adam Smith camp saw the falll of a soviet union in 1991 as a paradigm failure, not as a paradigm shift.....so they thought it just needed some economic fixing.....It was and it is a paradigm shift from red socialism to socially friendly capitalism and with these came the socio-econocmics knowlege gap.... I understand why scientist in the former socialist countries did not try to write books about socialist friendly capitalism as that would have probably given them advice closer to what hey needed, instead most of the brought the eocnomic man....a socially unfriendly man to help them..... Bur I do not understand why scientist in old capitalist countries did not wrote red microeconomic books or red macroeconomic books after all once they joined the capitalist family better have scientific ways to understand their behaviour.....the red eocnomic man should be expected to behave different that the green economic man and the economic man....
I am sharing here a paper as food for thoughts related to your comments:
Have a nice day.
Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Pointing Out and Comparing the Sustainability Gaps Behind these Two Great Simplification Failures.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290607852_Adam_Smith_and_Karl_Marx_Under_the_Sustainability_Eye_Pointing_Out_and_Comparing_the_Sustainability_Gaps_Behind_these_Two_Great_Simplification_Failures
Article Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Point...
Dear Mohammad, with respect to your comments:
I have the opportunity to take on great thinkers of the past and their over simplication of reality from an outlier postion or an outsider position from the sustainability thinking point of view....
to highlight in simple terms their structures, their weaknessess, the link to current problems connected to those over simplications and link that to paradigm death and shift or paradigm death and merger....
Interestingly both paradigms died relatively close to each other, Karl Marx's paradigm died in 1991 and Adam Smith's paradigm died in 2012. Both deaths led to paradigm shifts and paradigm change knowledge gaps, both have the structures that will be at the center of the next cold war....
So my comments and work related any development or market issue comes from the highest point of neutrality and independence possible within me as that is the only way I see a consensus may be made later on for when the time comes to shift towards sustainability markets and a new paradigm shift knowledge gap.....
It can be said that to some degree it seems that both paradigms were subject of abuse/distortions at one point or another, but from the sustainability point of view only the structure matters to look at points of unsustainability and predict what will happen or point out what has already happened....I will leave it there...
Have a nice day Mohammad.
Sharing here my most recent publications as food for thoughts:
Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Pointing Out and Comparing the Sustainability Gaps Behind these Two Great Simplification Failures
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299885202_Adam_Smith_and_Karl_Marx_Under_the_Sustainability_Eye_Pointing_Out_and_Comparing_the_Sustainability_Gaps_Behind_these_Two_Great_Simplification_Failures
Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s model: Was Going Green the Only Option? If not, Is This Option the Most Sustainable One?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299882613_Understanding_the_Death_and_Paradigm_Shift_of_Adam_Smith%27s_model_Was_Going_Green_the_Only_Option_If_not_Is_This_Option_the_Most_Sustainable_One
The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was the Arrow Impossibility Theorem Left Behind?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299879934_The_Unintended_Consequences_of_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Was_the_Arrow_Impossibility_Theorem_Left_Behind
Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations under Win-Win and No Win-Win Situations
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298353982_Paradigm_Evolution_and_Sustainability_Thinking_Using_a_Sustainability_Inversegram_to_State_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Expectations_under_Win-Win_and_No_Win-Win_Situations
Article Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Point...
Article Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s m...
Article The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was...
Data Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sust...
The question is interesting and inspired to an interesting discussion. In my opinion, it is good that there was a discussion on this topic. It seems to me that it is good that there was a discussion in the question of this question.
Best wishes
Dear Dariusz, I am about to expand ideas in this area to point out that after the 1991 fall of red socialism or Karl Marx's world China and former soviet bloc countries like Russia did not shift to a market that mantains social responsibility, they traded social responsibility for economic responsibility creating in the process a social sustainability gap, which will put pressure on those countries in the future.
Perhaps paradigm shift knowledge gaps prevented them from seeing the how to shift from socially friendly development or red socialism to socially friendly capitalism or economy friendly red socialism.
The publication will come out by the end of the month or a few weeks after and I will share it
Good day!
Some of you may find the ideas in the article below interesting:
An Overview of the 1848 Karl Marx's Capitalism Fix Dilemmas: How a Step by Step Road Towards Economy Friendly Red Socialism May Have Looked Had Marx Stated it?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334479026_An_Overview_of_the_1848_Karl_Marx's_Capitalism_Fix_Dilemmas_How_a_Step_by_Step_Road_Towards_Economy_Friendly_Red_Socialism_May_Have_Looked_Had_Marx_Stated_it
- Badges
- Science topic