Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 21

first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Capitalism
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
EN
The designations of systemic doctrines are labels and landmarks in the public debate: in relation to them, its participants and observers define their political identity, at the same time projecting ideas about the identity of their opponents. Therefore, their semantic content differs depending on who and for what purpose calls these designations in the public space. This is the main reason why such names have become the subject of attention from researchers interested in language as an element of social life. One of such designations is capitalism – one of the key concepts of the Polish political transformation. However, this designation and the concept behind it were the subject of linguists’ attention to a lesser extent than it might seem. I would like to fill this gap. My aim was to present the shaping of the concept of capitalism in Polish in various historical periods. I analyzed the linguistic material taken from Polish encyclopedias and dictionaries. Being aware that the selection of sources is not representative of the entire Polish language, I treat the results of the analysis as an introduction to further research. I referred to the concept of the linguistic image of the world. Capitalism appears for the first time in Polish encyclopedias and dictionaries at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. From that moment on, the scope of definitions and the number of their semantic components constantly increased, and their final number, type and hierarchy differed depending on the historical period in question. The two great turning points in the profiling of the concept of capitalism are the years 1945 and 1989. This allows us to formulate a thesis about the important role of encyclopedias and dictionaries in petrifying a specific resource of knowledge and legitimizing the political regime.
EN
The terms “mal(e)development” and “(com)modification” are coinages that underscore the nexus of the patriarchy, colonialism and capitalism in the Indian context. India has witnessed tremendous development and exploitation of its natural resources in the post‑independence era owing to the aids sponsored by the developed nations. The mal(e) development and (com)modification of India on the western model is masquerading as nation building in the 21st century. Arundhati Roy, the prominent feminist writer‑activist, lays bare this camouflaged maldevelopment and commodification of nature and women. Roy’s concerns are pretty much influenced by eco‑feministic discourse. In post‑independence India, colonialism has resorted to subterfuge, presenting a Western model of development to the developing nations.
EN
For many reasons, it is true that the Protestant Reformation unleashed the forces that lay behind the emergence of capitalism. Such a system was compatible with the emancipation of individuals, their mentalities, due to specific societal reforms and transformations. Therefore, it gave birth, in an unprecedented way, to a “new form of capitalism”. But the main idea I want to stress in this article is that the capitalist ethos was present before the Reformation, many centuries ago, in what is called now the “Christian spirit”. In this direction, I emphasize many theories which disagree with the Weber’s well-known thesis about the relation between capitalism and religion, especially when it comes to generalize a particular result that is both theologically vague and empirically disprovable.
EN
The article confronts Karl Marx’s groundbreaking projection of globalization with the statements of modern theoreticians like Max Horkheimer, Zygmunt Bauman and Chris Harman, which are linked to the marxist concept of historical materialism. Author shows the difference between the optimistic vision of social order based on the peaceful coexistence of the integrated humanity, which can be found in Marx’s works, and the negative economical, political, social and psychological consequences of the actual stage of globalization – described by Marx’s modern followers. In the Marx’s idea of “social emancipation” the liberty is harmonized with equality, however, according to Horkheimer, the “administrated world” puts an end to liberty, doing so in her name, on the other hand, according to Bauman, the “disorder” born in the globalizing world excludes both liberty and equality. Reference to Chris Harman servers for the purpose of reminder, that even although, the capitalist system is evolving, it’s essence remains the same, because the capital – at present, and at the times of Marx – is the vampire, living by sucking blood from the proletariat. British theoretician, like Marx before, sees the emancipation capability inside the working class – which now is the most numerous since the beginning of capitalism.
EN
espite many crisises, for more than 200 years capitalism has been a system which does not lose its significance. The French school of regulation, which was created as an answer to the crisis of the 1970's and the co-existing phenomenon of stagflation, is trying to explain why despite numerous crisises afflicting this system, it manage to evolve and adapt to new conditions. The objective of the article is to discuss synthetically the problems of capitalism from the point of view of regulation theory. The first part of the article explains the basic principles of regulation theory. Categories such as regimes of accumulation, modes of regulation, means of production or institutional forms constitute the starting point of consideration for the regulationists. This perspective allows to explain significant reasons for crisises and to indicates many types of productions regimes and their evolution. The abovementioned issues were discussed in the second part of the article.
Nowa Krytyka
|
2017
|
issue 38
217 – 234
EN
Report from The Second International Conference on Marxism and Socialism in the 21st Century, Wuhan, China.
EN
Capitalism is a widely discussed topic in economic as well as in sociological studies. Since the early ‘90s, after the collapse of the economic systems of socialist Countries, it has become the main way of organizing the economy in most of the world. This article is set to describe the features of Liberal Market Economies (LMEs) and Coordinated Market Economies (CMEs), as defined in the literature on the topic, with particular reference to the European context. Even if such description is based on traditional elements, it can be useful in order to study the current evolutionary patterns of the two main models of capitalism, not only in a European perspective but also in a global one.
EN
Some of the most promising post-Cold War developments in Marxian thought have been stimulated by problems facing Marxists in Western Europe, to that extent they all seem to lay bare, intentionally or otherwise, the lacking of qualities, of Marx’s prediction. The most significant example of the failure of Marxist theory to be realised in practice is the persistent survival of the capitalist mode of production. The inevitable crisis foreseen by Marx, which would lead to revolution, failed to materialise and that claim is now itself historical, since capitalism has become the norm for social organisation in most of the world’s nations. By asking the question how capitalism can persist amid crisis, Gramsci, provided the most promising way of revision to the stunted Marxian orthodoxy. Today for us is important to ask whether Marxist analysis of neoliberal global strategy or globalisation and fragmentation invite reconsideration of the tendency on the part of many international relations scholarships to ignore and simply dismiss Marxism. It is also important to consider whether the significance of Marxist project of developing a critical approach to international politics, is but one way in which Marxism progressed beyond the traditional Anglo-American scholarship to IR.
EN
The main issue presented in the article is the process of globalization (also described as a phase of global capitalism) seen from the ethical point of view. The process of globalization has been researched for a long time. Global ethics itself also seems to be already a separate field of study. The growing interest in ethics observed in the last years is mostly due to the crisis of trust put in the sphere of business, as well as the government and institutions. The aim of the article is to provoke a wider discussion concerning the basic rules and the intentions of the global ethics in the environment of today's conditions of global economy in capitalist countries as well as an attempt to convince that the level of the global ethics depends mostly on the current state of ethical awareness in the society and the institutional compliance with ethical norms on local, national and international level.
EN
This article attempts to present the question of the co-called transition period, which according to Marxist theoreticians, emerges after the overthrow of capitalism by the workers’ revolution. The main sources for my study are the views of those Marxists who, directly or indirectly, participated in the three “great debates” about socialist economics (calculation debate, debates about planning in the Soviet Union and in revolutionary Cuba). To present how Marxism describes the question of Post-capitalist reality, I rely on the writings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Leon Trotsky and Ernest Mandel, and I try to create an outline of social-economic model. Description, which emerged from writings of the aforementioned authors, presents a society based on workers’ democracy in the workplace (economic) and state (political) levels and democratic planning, whose aim is to satisfy the needs. Such a description of the Post-capitalist society is radically different from the reality of the Stalinist bureaucratic regimes.
PL
Niniejszy artykuł jest próbą przybliżenia problematyki „okresu przejściowego”, jaki zdaniem teoretyków marksistowskich, powinien nastąpić po obaleniu kapitalizmu przez rewolucję robotniczą. Podstawowym odniesieniem są dla mnie poglądy, jakie prezentowali marksiści podczas trzech „debat ekonomicznych” na temat „budowy socjalizmu” (debata o kalkulacji, debata o planowaniu w ZSRR i na Kubie po rewolucji). W celu opisu, w jaki sposób marksizm podchodzi do kwestii postkapitalistycznej rzeczywistości, bazowałem głównie na pismach Karola Marksa, Fryderyka Engelsa, Lwa Trockiego i Ernesta Mandela, w oparciu o które próbowałem stworzyć zarys modelu społeczno-gospodarczego. Opis, jaki wyłania się z prac wymienionych autorów, przedstawia społeczeństwo oparte na demokracji robotniczej w miejscu pracy (aspekt ekonomiczny) i na poziomie państwa (aspekt polityczny) oraz planowaniu demokratycznemu, mającemu na celu sukcesywne zaspokajanie oraz bardziej złożonych potrzeb społecznych. Tak opisany model postkapitalistycznego społeczeństwa stanowi radykalnie zaprzeczenie rzeczywistości, jaka istniała w (post)stalinowskich reżimach biurokratycznych.
EN
As an individual acts within the reality which is determined by the social elements, it is crucial for it to comply with traditions and norms. The capitalistic system has created specific mechanisms, performing the role of strengthener of the whole system and enabling the cooperation of all individuals. As a result, in modern economics, the profit motive has been elevated from being merely a key plank in optimising societal benefit, to becoming the sole purpose of economies.
PL
Malejące zaufanie do systemu kapitalistycznego, kryzys demokracji, zmiany demograficzne oraz postępujący rozwój techniczny i technologiczny, a także substytucja pracy kapitałem w warunkach rosnącej konkurencji, sprawiły, iż coraz więcej państw decyduje się na zmianę obieranego kierunku w polityce gospodarczej – z neoliberalnego na bardziej socjaldemokratyczny. Efektem tego jest rosnące zainteresowanie wśród rządzących narzędziami służącymi do zmniejszenia nieustannie rozwijających się nierówności ekonomicznych. Jedne z takich narzędzi to bezwarunkowy dochód gwarantowany. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest przedstawienie wybranych koncepcji owego narzędzia, jego historii, potencjalnych szans i zagrożeń z nim związanych, a także możliwości jego wdrożenia do sfery realnej gospodarki na podstawie dotychczas przeprowadzonych programów pilotażowych.
EN
At the time of reduced trust for capitalism system, democratic crisis, demographic changes and progressive technical and technological development, as well as labour substitution for capital, many countries have decided to change the course has taken in economic policy, from neoliberal to more social-democratic. As a result, more and more governments are interested about effective tools used to reduce perpetually developing economic inequalities. One of such a tool is basic income. The aim of this article is to present selected concepts of this tool, his history, potential chances and threats related to it, as well as the possibilities of its implementation in the real economy based on already conducted pilots programs.
Ekonomista
|
2020
|
issue 2
236-252
PL
Przedmiotem tego szkicu jest prezentacja studiów Michała Kaleckiego nad dynamiką i cyklicznym rozwojem gospodarki kapitalistycznej, które przyniosły mu największy rozgłos i uznanie w środowisku ekonomicznym i które są dalej w rozwijane i reinterpretowane, przede wszystkim na gruncie współczesnej ekonomii postkeynesowskiej. We wstępie autor pokazuje aksjologię badań Kaleckiego nad rozwiniętą gospodarką kapitalistyczną, gospodarką centralnie planowaną oraz gospodarką krajów "Trzeciego Świata". Część pierwsza przedstawia model cyklu koniunkturalnego i dynamiki gospodarki kapitalistycznej opracowany przez Kaleckiego. Model ten, będący jego własną wersją teorii efektywnego popytu, stał się ramą analityczną jego teorii pełnego zatrudnienia i płynącej z niej rekomendacji dla polityki gospodarczej, które są omawiane w części drugiej. Część trzecia omawia podstawowe różnice między gospodarką kapitalistyczną, która istniała w latach kryzysu 1929-1933 aż do mniej więcej połowy lat siedemdziesiątych ubiegłego stulecia, a gospodarką współczesnego, globalnego kapitalizmu finansowego. Autor próbuje przy tym wskazać, jak Kalecki podszedłby zapewne do wyzwań współczesnego kapitalizmu finansowego i jakich mógłby udzielić wskazań na temat pożądanej polityki gospodarczej, kierując się swoją aksjologią dotyczącą celów gospodarowania.
EN
This paper presents the studies of Michał Kalecki on the dynamics and cyclical development of the capitalist economy, which brought him the largest renown and esteem and which are further developed and reinterpreted, notably in the framework of the contemporary post-Keynesian economics. In the introduction, the author shows the axiology of the Kalecki's research on the developed capitalist economy, centrally planned economy, and the economy of the 'Third World'. The first section presents the Kalecki's model of business cycle and the dynamics of the capitalist economy. This model, being his own version of the effective demand theory, has become the analytical framework for his theory of full employment and policy recommendations derived thereof, which are discussed in section two. Section three shows basic differences between the capitalist economy that existed during the Great Depression of the years 1929-33 up to about the half of the seventies of the last century and the economy of the contemporary global capitalism. The author tries to indicate how Kalecki might have approached the challenges of the contemporary financial capitalism and what kind of policy recommendations could he suggest according to his axiology as to the aims of economic activity.
EN
The society is a complex formation consisting of relations, impacts and roles. The need of satisfying the needs was embedded into the society as a mechanism providing the coherence. The democracy acting on the basis of the abstract rule of equality before the law, requires the usage of different mechanisms which guarantee the continuity of the law system. As the bureaucracy became a part of the social organism functioning within the capitalistic and democratic conditions, it enabled the change of the community actions into rational and regular ones.
PL
Żyjemy w czasach antropogenicznego kryzysu klimatycznego. Ale czy na pewno? Szkic pokazuje, jak w krwawej łaźni zmilitaryzowanej akumulacji i podboju po 1492 r. ukształtował się na wskroś nowoczesny fetysz „ludzkości”. Twierdzenie, że to Antropos napędza kryzys klimatyczny, implikuje aktora historycznego, który nie istnieje. Rzeczywistość jest odmienna: ludzkość nie robi niczego. Historię tworzą określone grupy ludzi – imperia, klasy, instytucje religijne, armie, finansiści. Artykuł określa antropocen jako coś więcej niż kiepską historię – choć ucieczka od historii światowej ma tu kluczowe znaczenie. Dowodzi, że dzisiejszy antropocen jest jednym z filarów ekologizmu bogatych. Jego korzenie historyczne tkwią w projekcie ucywilizowania oraz w niedawnym, powstałym po 1970 r. ekologizmie „statku kosmicznego Ziemia”. Zarówno Ekologizm, jak i współczesna moda na antropocen dążą przede wszystkim do jednego: zrzucenia winy z kapitalizmu jako głównego sprawcy kryzysu ekologicznego. Od samego początku Ekologizm unikał „nazywania systemu po imieniu”. Tylko określenie kryzysu klimatycznego jako „kapitałogenicznego” – „spowodowanego przez kapitał” – pozwoli nam stworzyć skuteczną socjalistyczną politykę sprawiedliwości klimatycznej.
EN
We live in times of anthropogenic climate crisis. Or do we? This essay shows how “humanity” is a thoroughly modern fetish forged in the bloodbath of militarized accumulation and conquest after 1492. To say that the Anthropos drives the climate crisis implicates a historical actor that does not exist. But the reality is different. Humanity does nothing. Specific groups of humans make history – empires, classes, religious institutions, armies, and financiers. This essay reveals the Anthropocene as more than lousy history – although the flight from world history is crucial. It argues that today’s Anthropocene is one pillar of the Environmentalism of the Rich. It is rooted historically in the Civilizing Project, and, more recently, in post‑1970 “Spaceship Earth” environmentalism. Both Environmentalism and its recent Anthropocene craze have sought to do one thing above all: deflect blame from capitalism as the prime mover of the climate crisis. From the beginning, Environmentalism avoided “naming the system.” Only by identifying the climate crisis as capitalogenic – “made by humans” – can we begin to forge an effective socialist politics of climate justice.
EN
We live in times of anthropogenic climate crisis. Or do we? This essay shows how “humanity” is a thoroughly modern fetish forged in the bloodbath of militarized accumulation and conquest after 1492. To say that the Anthropos drives the climate crisis implicates a historical actor that does not exist. But the reality is different. Humanity does nothing. Specific groups of humans make history – empires, classes, religious institutions, armies, and financiers. This essay reveals the Anthropocene as more than lousy history – although the flight from world history is crucial. It argues that today’s Anthropocene is one pillar of the Environmentalism of the Rich. It is rooted historically in the Civilizing Project, and, more recently, in post‑1970 “Spaceship Earth” environmentalism. Both Environmentalism and its recent Anthropocene craze have sought to do one thing above all: deflect blame from capitalism as the prime mover of the climate crisis. From the beginning, Environmentalism avoided “naming the system.” Only by identifying the climate crisis as capitalogenic – “made by humans” – can we begin to forge an effective socialist politics of climate justice.
PL
Żyjemy w czasach antropogenicznego kryzysu klimatycznego. Ale czy na pewno? Szkic pokazuje, jak w krwawej łaźni zmilitaryzowanej akumulacji i podboju po 1492 r. ukształtował się na wskroś nowoczesny fetysz „ludzkości”. Twierdzenie, że to Antropos napędza kryzys klimatyczny, implikuje aktora historycznego, który nie istnieje. Rzeczywistość jest odmienna: ludzkość nie robi niczego. Historię tworzą określone grupy ludzi – imperia, klasy, instytucje religijne, armie, finansiści. Artykuł określa antropocen jako coś więcej niż kiepską historię – choć ucieczka od historii światowej ma tu kluczowe znaczenie. Dowodzi, że dzisiejszy antropocen jest jednym z filarów ekologizmu bogatych. Jego korzenie historyczne tkwią w projekcie ucywilizowania oraz w niedawnym, powstałym po 1970 r. ekologizmie „statku kosmicznego Ziemia”. Zarówno Ekologizm, jak i współczesna moda na antropocen dążą przede wszystkim do jednego: zrzucenia winy z kapitalizmu jako głównego sprawcy kryzysu ekologicznego. Od samego początku Ekologizm unikał „nazywania systemu po imieniu”. Tylko określenie kryzysu klimatycznego jako „kapitałogenicznego” – „spowodowanego przez kapitał” – pozwoli nam stworzyć skuteczną socjalistyczną politykę sprawiedliwości klimatycznej.
EN
The issue of economic theory and practice constitutes a significant part of the Catholic Social Doctrine. In spite of the fact that various aspects of the doctrine have already been examined in both the Czech and Slovak geographical environment, there is still room for further and deeper investigation. In the paper, I focus on an analysis of neoliberal principles and their reception in the various texts of the three popes: Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, respectively. I try to highlight that in their numerous statements (expressed implicitly or explicitly in the encyclical letters, apostolic exhortations, addresses, and homilies) we cannot see any indications of a shift towards a neoliberal political ideology. On the contrary, all the aforementioned popes have far from neoliberal accounts in their written expressions or unwritten statements. Moreover, they criticize economic inequality, unemployment; emphasize the role of the state in the economy, the primacy of man over any profit-seeking activities, the primacy of work over capital, and the need for achievement (global) solidarity. All these features of the Catholic Social Doctrine seem to be in contrast with neoliberalism.
EN
Liberal capitalist democracy is a universal socio-political project of our age. But this project is in crisis and in decline. The current crisis of democracy caused by the Darwinist spirit of the late capitalist order only proves that democracy is an instrument for strengthening the dominant positions of the ruling liberal elites. In other words, democracy, in particular liberal democracy as a hegemonic form of the contemporary global democratic project, functions as a formal ideological-instrumental framework for the reproduction of the dominant position of a ruling class serving the interests of the few, not the many. In this way, anti-democratic sentiments among the masses are fuelled almost everywhere in both Western and non-Western cultures where political elites have assumed a formal democratic mask. Furthermore, the existing crisis of the Western liberal democratic project has given crucial benefits for the revival of anti-elitist populism in the contemporary world. The goal of this paper is to critically examine the fate of democracy in modern times as well as to shed light once again on the crisis of the liberal conception of democracy, including its concomitant pathologies, resistances, and political and social consequences.  
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.