Neo-Marxism developed as a result of social and political problems that traditionalMarxist theory was unable to sufficiently address.[22]
FollowingWorld War I, some neo-Marxists dissented and later formed theFrankfurt School. The Frankfurt School never identified themselves as neo-Marxists. Toward the end of the 20th century, neo-Marxism and other Marxist theories becameanathema in democratic andcapitalistic Western cultures, where the term attained negative connotations during theRed Scare. For this reason, social theorists of the same ideology since that time have tended to disassociate themselves from the term neo-Marxism.[23]
Big business can maintain selling prices at high levels while still competing to cut costs, advertise and market their products. However, competition is generally limited with a few large capital formations sharing various markets, with the exception of a few actual monopolies (such as theBell System at the time). Theeconomic surpluses that result cannot be absorbed through consumers spending more. The concentration of the surplus in the hands of the business elite must therefore be geared towardsimperialistic andmilitaristic government tendencies, which is the easiest and surest way to utilisesurplus productive capacity.
Exploitation focuses on low wage workers and groups at home, especially minorities. Average earners see the pressures in drive for production destroy their human relationships, leading to wider alienation and hostility. The whole system is largely irrational since though individuals may make rational decisions, the ultimate systemic goals are not. The system continues to function so long asKeynesian full employment policies are pursued, but there is the continued threat to stability from less-developed countries throwing off the restraints of neo-colonial domination.
Paul A. Baran introduced the concept of potentialeconomic surplus to deal with novel complexities raised by the dominance ofmonopoly capital, in particular the theoretical prediction that monopoly capitalism would be associated with low capacity utilization, and hence potential surplus would typically be much larger than the realized surplus. WithPaul Sweezy, Baran elaborated the importance of this innovation, its consistency with Marx's labor concept ofvalue and supplementary relation to Marx's category ofsurplus value.[75]
According to Baran's categories:
Actual economic surplus: "the difference between what society's actual current output and its actual current consumption." Hence, it is equal to current savings or accumulation.
Potential economic surplus: "the difference between that output that could be produced in a given natural and technical environment with the help of employable productive resources, and what might be regarded as essential consumption".
Baran also introduced the concept of planned surplus—a category that could only be operationalized in a rationally plannedsocialist society. This was defined as "the difference between society's 'optimum' output available in a historically given natural and technological environment under conditions of planned 'optimal' utilization of all available productive resources, and some chosen 'optimal' volume of consumption."[76]
Baran used the surplus concept to analyze underdeveloped economies (or what are now more optimistically called "developing economies") in hisPolitical Economy of Growth.[76]
^Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2011). "International Relations Theory". In Kurian, George Thomas (ed.).The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Vol. 3.CQ Press. pp. 829–831.doi:10.4135/9781608712434.ISBN9781933116440.
^Gunnell, John G. (2011). "Political Science, History of". In Kurian, George Thomas (ed.).The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Vol. 4.CQ Press. pp. 1278–1286.ISBN978-1-933116-44-0.
^Laberge, Yves (2011). "Protest Music". In Kurian, George Thomas (ed.).The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Vol. 4.CQ Press. pp. 1374–1375.ISBN978-1-933116-44-0.
^Moolakkattu, John S. (October 2009). "Robert W. Cox and Critical Theory of International Relations".International Studies.46 (4):439–456.doi:10.1177/002088171004600404.S2CID143270526.
^Bowers, C. A. (January 1984). "The Problem of Individualism and Community in Neo-Marxist Educational Thought".Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.85 (3):365–390.doi:10.1177/016146818408500307.S2CID141113071.
^Schulenberg, Ulf (2001). "Fredric Jameson's American Neo-Marxism and the Dialectics of Totality and Difference".Amerikastudien / American Studies.46 (2):281–299.JSTOR41157649.
^Jessop, Bob (July 2001). "Bringing the State Back In (Yet Again): Reviews, Revisions, Rejections, and Redirections".International Review of Sociology.11 (2):149–173.doi:10.1080/713674035.S2CID144308378.
Holz, Hans Heinz (1972).Strömungen und Tendenzen im Neomarxismus [Currents and tendencies in neo-Marxism] (in German). Munich:Carl Hanser Verlag.ISBN3-446-11650-8.
Müller, Horst (1986).Praxis und Hoffnung. Studien zur Philosophie und Wissenschaft gesellschaftlicher Praxis von Marx bis Bloch und Lefebvre [Practice and hope. Studies on the philosophy and science of social practice from Marx to Bloch and Lefebvre] (in German). Bochum: Germinal Verlag.ISBN3-88663-509-0.
von Weiss, Andreas (1970).Neomarxismus. Die Problemdiskussion im Nachfolgemarximus der Jahre 1945 bis 1970 [Neo-Marxism. The problem discussion in the successor Marxism from 1945 to 1970] (in German). Freiburg/Munich: Karl-Alber-Verlag.ISBN3-495-47212-6.
The End of the MarketArchived 2020-08-03 at theWayback Machine A website containing a critical evaluation the idea of the market-clearing price which affirms Marx's theory that in capitalism profitability would decline.
.svg)
