Bourgeois political economy

In a Marxist analysis of the history of economic doctrines, the emergence of bourgeois political economy as a direction of economic thought dates from the period of “the formation of the capitalist mode of production and the undeveloped class struggle of the proletariat” ^[4] . The definition of " bourgeois " here refers to the social-class category of " bourgeoisie ". Separating the classical school of economic thought from all political economy , Karl Marx wrote that by it "I understand all political economy, starting with W. Petty , who explores the internal dependencies of bourgeois relations of production" ^[5] . The definition of "bourgeois" reveals here:

1. directly , through the name of the class of the bourgeoisie - the aggregate goal-setting proposed by the theory, its “targeting”. This theory, “expressing the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie” ^[4] ), is aimed at optimizing the economic conditions of the bourgeoisie, and the implementation of the relevant proposals was in line with the interests, the very “nature of the bourgeois, guided by the principle of“ reasonable selfishness ”” ^[4] .
2. indirectly - (the name of the class indicates a system of social relations in which the interests of capitalists are put forward) - capitalism as a socio-economic system, which is the main object of research. At the same time, bourgeois political economy “proclaimed capitalism an eternal and natural form of production, the only system, in its opinion, corresponding to the“ nature of man ”" ^[4] .

The social affiliation of the authors does not play any role in the issue of their classification as “bourgeois political economists”.

Historically, political economy in general and classical political economy in particular begin precisely with bourgeois political economy . In retrospect, bourgeois political economy opposes the work of mercantilists . The latter, to a certain extent protecting the individual interests of the bourgeoisie, at the same time assumed the conservation of some feudal survivals in the economy of a country , etc. ^[6]

At further stages of the development of world economic thought, alternative theories that express the interests of other classes and social groups begin to oppose the ideas of bourgeois political economy. The interests of the petty bourgeoisie were expressed by the various trends of petty-bourgeois political economy , as well as its subspecies - vulgar political economy (from Latin vulgaris - simple, ordinary, simplified; compare vulgaris in the names of biological species). Finally, in the 19th century, Marxist political economy was born (in definitions that appeal to class classification, it is also called proletarian political economy ).

In a series of names compiled according to the formula “ Political economy + name of a social group”, formally, “Political economy of the rentier” ^[7] (the name of one of the works of N. I. Bukharin ) is formally included. The rentier , one of the subgroups of the bourgeoisie, appears in this work as an object of criticism , while the scientific work itself belongs to the category of works of Marxist political economy, and is devoted to criticism of the Austrian school .

At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the scientific and technological revolution , the development of new forms of management both within national economies and in international economic relations cardinally change the social composition of the “collective customer,” that is, groups whose newly developed economic theories are devoted to optimizing expanded reproduction . And although economists, sociologists , political scientists of all directions have given a lot of options for naming this new formation (or stage) - imperialism , post-industrial society , postmodernism , etc., no satisfactory and universally recognized alternative to the "bourgeoisie" as the name of the modern class has been found. Thus, in the 20th and 21st centuries, the term bourgeois political economy does not go beyond the vocabulary of research conducted in systems of teachings involving division along a historical-formation basis. The generic trait of “bourgeois” is now associated with a class that is different in composition, but the same in terms of attitude to the means of production and the way of participation in the distribution of goods.

In order to draw a dividing line between the various currents of scientific thought in a general way (that is, without delving into evaluations of the “rightness” or “wrongness” of this or that scientist), it is enough to distribute this general information flow according to the criteria of mutual polemic between representatives of the corresponding scientific schools.

At the stage of the emergence of political economy as a science (the end of the 17th century, that is, long before this science was called “bourgeois” for the first time), this was a polemic between Petty, Smith and its other founders with mercantilists - a direction that reflected economic thought in relation to the pre-capitalist structure of states and the state of their productive forces and industrial relations. With the further development of capitalism, the prerequisites that fueled mercantilism as a school came to naught, and the feudal survivals themselves were gradually overcome.

Thanks to the progressive development of capitalism during the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries, scientific disputes between political economists of different schools were not antagonistic in nature, and therefore it is impossible to indicate a serious alternative to political economy classified as "bourgeois" in this period. The most critical of the contemporary political and economic structure of society were representatives of utopian socialism . However, these theories, due to the superficiality of their approaches to both criticizing capitalism and proposing alternatives to it, did not develop in the same powerful current of world economic thought as their opponents.

The real alternative to classical English political economy was put forward only in the middle of the 19th century by Karl Marx. Defining the prevailing trend of economic thought as bourgeois political economy , Marx gave its detailed criticism in Capital, thereby laying the foundation for Marxist political economy . The ensuing increase in mutual polemics of representatives of both directions, which did not stop even after the death of Marx and Engels, showed that - unlike the era of Utopian socialists - there were two strongest, competing currents of economic thought, stable for many generations of scientists.

Over time, within the framework of each of them, various schools of economic thought were formed, leading polemics both with representatives of opposing movements and within the respective groups. Sometimes it is more convenient to name the sides of these discussions on the basis of species, returning to the tribal ("Marxist" - "bourgeois") only when there is a need to emphasize the fundamental or social significance of the relevant dispute.

In the 20th century, almost every well-known “bourgeois political economist” who studied the global problems of world development criticized one or another aspect of the political economy of Marxism, and vice versa. As such, the definition of "bourgeois political economy" by its representatives was not disputed, nor were the numerous names of the classification groups operated on in Sovietological centers. The subjects of the dispute between political economists, political scientists and sociologists of two different social systems were, as a rule, more fundamental problems that were significant for comparative analysis , which was the subject of special studies in the West (the so-called comparative studies ^[8] ).

Bourgeois Political Economy vs Economics

In Marxist literature, the question of the relationship between the concepts of "Bourgeois political economy" and "Economics" (in the transcriptive version of the Cyrillic alphabet - " Economics ") is not finally resolved. The following points of view are expressed here:

• Economics is the next stage in the evolution of bourgeois political economy;
• Economics is a new economic science that has replaced the "dead" bourgeois political economy.

The monograph of N. K. Karataev “Economics - bourgeois political economy” ( 1966 ) ^[9], in the order of discussion of the question, combined both options under one cover. On the one hand, its title equates both concepts, on the other, its introduction begins with the words:

The system of economic sciences without political economy - this is the initial conclusion that arises after a formal review of the curricula of universities and colleges in England, USA ..., ^[10]

which can be perceived both as an argument in favor of the reverse statement, and as an attempt to give a third, compromise option:

• Economics is just the name of a training course eclectic in terms of methodology; however, at the same time, bourgeois political economy as an academic science continues to exist and develop (cf. the first option) due to the preservation of both the subject (economy) and the bourgeoisie as the ruling class.

The latter position is described in more detail in a special article in Economics . In fact, in the extensive bibliography of the Soviet period, the combination of "bourgeois political economy" is actively used in the headings and text of works devoted to the analysis of modern capitalism and its social sciences, while Economics, with a certain regularity, also becomes the object of relevant special studies.

Foreign authors continue to use the category of “bourgeois political economy” in their works ^{[8] [11]} (also see T. Atkinson below), putting it in one context or another of their scientific analysis. “Bourgeois”, in contrast to the “proletarian,” is a classification identifier that serves to analyze the evolution of science by the criterion of the type of socio-economic structure, the optimization of which is aimed at the corresponding doctrine ("expressing the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie ..." ^[4] ), it is aimed at optimizing economic activity of the bourgeoisie, in accordance with the interests, the very "... the nature of the bourgeois, guided by the principle of" rational egoism "" ^[4] ). Wed Tom Atkinson:

Marx's theory emphasized the historical variability of social institutions and blamed bourgeois political economy , for example, on the unjustified universalization of an economic system with a limited historical period of existence, suggesting that the laws of capitalism are laws for any mode of production.

Original Text (Eng.)

Marx's theory emphasized the historical variability of social institutions and charged bourgeois political economy , for example, with falsely universalizing an historically contingent economic system, that is, with supposing that the laws of capitalist production were the laws of any possible mode of production ^[12] .

With regard to political economy, the definition of "Western" is to a certain extent similar to the definition of "bourgeois", but not identical to it. Among the “western” economists are scientists from India, Japan, etc., while far from all the theories of political economists of the USSR and other socialist countries belong to the “Soviet”, and not the “western” school.

• Lenin V.I. Three sources and three components of Marxism . - MSS, t. 23.
• Bukharin N. I. Political economy rentier. Theory of Value and Profit of an Austrian School 1919
• Zarrin P.I. Classical bourgeois political economy. - M., 1956.
• Karataev N.K. Economics - bourgeois political economy. - M .: Nauka, 1966. - S. 272. - 3200 copies.
• Anikin A.V. Youth of science. Life and ideas of thinkers-economists before Marx. - M., 1971.
• Medvedev V.A. , Abalkin L.I. , Ozherelyev O.I. Political Economy. Textbook for high schools. M .: Politizdat, 1998.

1. ↑ Abalkin L.I. Political Economy. I. The emergence and development of political economy // Big Soviet Encyclopedia , 3rd ed., T. 19. M .: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1975. - 647 p.
2. ↑ Lenin V.I. Three sources and three components of Marxism. - PSS, t.23, p.40
3. ↑ Bourgeois political economy // Federal educational portal "Economics, Sociology, Management" (inaccessible link)
4. ↑ ^{1 2 3 4 5 6} Ryndina M.N. Classical bourgeois political economy.// The Great Soviet Encyclopedia , 3rd ed., Vol. 12. M.: Soviet encyclopedia , 1973. - 623 p.
5. ↑ Marx K., Engels F. Soch., 2nd ed. - T. 23.P. 91, approx.)
6. ↑ Wed: Blaug M. Economic thought in retrospect. - M .: Case, 1996 .-- 687 p. - 18,000 copies. - ISBN 5-86461-151-4 .
7. ↑ Bukharin N. I. Political economy of the rentier. The theory of value and profit of the Austrian school. - M .: Orbit, 1988. - (Reprint 1925.)
8. ↑ ^{1 2} See : Marxism, Communism and Western Society. A Comparative Encyclopedia. - NY, 1972-1973; Gregory P. , Stuart R. Comparative Economic Systems. - Boston, 1980 and others.
9. ↑ Karataev N.K. Economics - bourgeois political economy. - M .: Nauka, 1966. - S. 272. - 3200 copies.
10. ↑ Karataev N.K., decree. Op., p. 5.
11. ↑ B. Ricardo Brown . Marx and the Foundations of the Critical Theory of Morality and Ethics./ Cultural Logic, Vol. 2, No. 2, Spring 1999. ISSN 1097-3087
12. ↑ Atchinson, Tom. False Consciousness Dissertation . Date of treatment August 5, 2010. Archived on April 26, 2012.