Development ,Capitalism Transformation and Marxism
Mustapha Machrafi
(Faculty of Law,Economics and Social Science Mohammed V University,Morocco)
Abstract: Economic institutions,systems and economic organizations cannot be approached independently of their cultural,social and historical contexts.The historical development of capitalism in the West was inseparable from a culture of individualism whose success was propelled by the myth of control and accumulation with the entrepreneurs as the central actor.Without such cultural support,the transposed capitalist system in sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world only leads to self-destruction of the regenerative capacities of the economy and local society.With the increased importance of human resources and organizational cultures,today’s innovative-immaterial capitalism requires a paradigm shift in political economy,a re-composition where the cultures,the modes of communication and coordination,the importance of the belonging and the network as well as those of shared knowledge at the base are taken into consideration.
Key words: capitalism;Marxism;sub-Saharan Africa;political economy;paradigm shift
No credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them.Long before the bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes.What I did that was new was to prove:(1) that theexistence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production,(2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,(3) that this dicta- torship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.
实验证实，在提高C/N的同时添加辅料均对纳豆的风味改善有不同程度的提高，其中10%糖蒸后加酸奶(以下简称酸奶纳豆)的纳豆产品效果最好。
Marx to J.Weydemeyer, Selected Works of Marx and Engels.
Economic institutions,systems and economic organizations such as firms can not be approached independently of their cultural,social and historical contexts.This statement is today universal in scope.Indeed,many authors and in various social sciences disciplines,agree to highlight the impossibility of a monodisciplinary scientific reductionism in the understanding of the processes of emergence and evolution of such social organisms.This need for an approach that is not only interdisciplinary but also intercultural becomes evident in the fields of economics and management.In fact,Understanding the institutions of capitalism needs to analyze the structures of economy,social and cultural context.
The globalization of economies involves uncontrolled risks revealing the madness of an economy programmed by productivism and profitability.It ultimately leads to the failure of Man and his knowledge to master nature.Thus,the logic of “economic growth” to infinity turns out to be a destructive myth.The health,food and ecological crises can be as much an example to give (M Machrafi,2008).
Serge Latouche proposes a critical approach to modernity which,for him,comes down to a Westernization of the world that rhymes with the colonization of the imaginary by the ideology of progress,science and technology.“Economicization” and “technicization” in modern societies are pushed to their extreme.Some criticisms of development,such as those formulated by Partant (2007) and Rist (1996),contributed to the rhetorical shift but did not give rise to a questioning of the values and practices of modernity.In the imagination,development embodies the figure of good and progress (Latouche,1989,1991,1995,1998,2001b,2003,2005).The technique inevitably refers to technical progress as the economy refers to the concepts of growth and development.These are just the progress of the economy.The trilogy of modernity is based,for Serge Latouche,on progress,technique and economics.The capitalism economy is thus necessary for the progress which,at the base,is the foundation of the latter through the techniques which revolutionize it permanently.It is not economic theory in itself that must be criminalized in the face of environmental disasters,but its narrow definition as a science of autonomous processes (Mustapha Machrafi,2012).
The history of development in the so-called developing countries is a vast undertaking that can be considered as a living laboratory from which we can draw conclusions that can pave the way,a new critical paradigm of political economy.Tensions between the need for a single model or universal model for all and the weight of specificities require clarification.The triumph of capitalism as a world-wide economic system is accompanied by a dominant economic thought that refuses to admit any alternative to the anomalies accumulated over the last two centuries.In other words,the triumph of capitalism is thus thinking and rethinking through Western mental schemas justifying its supremacy and hegemony.These epistemological obstacles are easily explained by the inheritance of Newtonism and Cartesianism and amplified by the very disappearance of the doubt that was,however,characteristic of the European critical spirit where capitalism was born.
就技法本身的来看，指头画的特点与其适宜的题材以及所面对的观众是相互统一而成体系的。“指墨画乃大写意粗放之画种，故宜解衣磅礴，以乱头粗服之法为之。为此，指画题材亦以粗犷、简古者为宜，并宜作大幅巨幛。倘若以册页斗方作纤细精工之画，则无由得指画之独特意趣。”[12]58
If the West has experienced its own development,it is because of the Enlightenment culture that gave it a meaning until its decline today,that of the myth of control and accumulation.It is in this universe that the entrepreneur,a central actor of .system,was born who completed this project of society.Let us quote Karl Marx when he wrote: Accumulate,accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!“Industry furnishes the material which saving accumulates.”Therefore,save,save,i.e.,reconvert the greatest possible portion of surplus-value,or surplus-product into capital! Accumulation for accumulation’s sake,production for production’s sake:by this formula classical economy expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie,and did not for a single instant deceive itself over the birth-throes of wealth. In this heroic adventure of the entrepreneur,profit has not been a simple economic category but a social project.It is also the famous “company of the merchants” of Adam Smith.From this point of view,capitalism can not be reduced to a vulgar mechanically transposable economic system.It is a whole civilization that gives itself as collective references the values of economics.It is,therefore,not surprising to see the invasion of the merchant universe on modern society today.In other words,governance only by the law of Market.
From this point of view,identity becomes an engine of efficiency insofar as it creates the conditions for the actors to adhere to the objectives of the organization.Here,the goal is subjective.Efficiency thus appears as the factual construction of a collective subjectivity.This is,ultimately,motivations of the actors of the organization.It is on these anthropological layers that the most efficient modes of coordination are constructed,thus limiting the zones of uncertainty and the pockets of unproductivity.
Moreover,political economy defines the living concrete man as a “homo oeconomicus” whose fundamental characteristic is selfishness and,consequently,its main motive is interest.This human behavior is valued and qualified as rational in modern societies.There is no real behavior outside of him.What is rational is real and what is real is rational,says Western philosophy.Thus,the “man of lights”,freed from ancient metaphysics,finds himself alienated by his own project.In the extreme,there is more wealth than having it.This same wealth is defined and measured by the categories of the market (price,profit,salary,accumulation,market production).The market is considered as the only modality of coordination and exchange between humans.
Let us reintroduce this critical spirit into the assessment that can be made of the mechanically transposed development of the industrialized countries towards the countries of the South,particularly those of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world,fields on which we had the opportunity to observe and to conduct research.
Ⅰ.Marxism and anti -capitalism of parachuted development
In the paradigm of development,regardless of the wide variety of its application models,development has been conceived as a simple economic system transferable from one space to another without the slightest precaution of adaptability to the host environment.By taking the Arab world and Africa as empirical grounds,this practice has contributed to the creation of rent economies.Indeed,if we look closely,the telescoping between the models of this transposed development and the target territories gives rise,in most cases,to formal societies and economies in which the work of nature (cash crops,oil,minerals,etc.) takes alarming proportions compared to human work or production in its most innovative figures.The export structure of these economies amply reflects this.As a result,the dominant development practices have produced exactly the opposite of the expected effects.Contrary to the classical Marxist view,it is capitalism that remains on the periphery of the pileup between the development policies pursued and the chain reactions provoked locally.The realities that arise before our eyes bring many paradoxes.It is the duty of critical thinking to identify them and to solve the enigmas.
In spite of the voluntarism of the development posted for the last seventy years by the governments and the international institutions,the production and the exports of the economies of the whole African continent have not diversified towards products and services incorporating added values.which are characteristic of economies that mobilize intelligence and knowledge in general.Despite the challenges of globalization driven upward by the knowledge-based economy,these official economies remain in some ways equal to themselves.In the case of African and arab countries,neither the planning or economic planification inherited from the Marxist paradigm of yesteryear nor the economic liberalization of today have been able to tilt them into the paradigm of innovation and industrial culture in general.These territories remain fundamentally reservoirs of energy and raw materials for the most innovative and industrializing economies on the planet.
These countries are thus the “soft underbelly or canard boiteu” of a global economy in which Asia and particularly India and China are on the rise.It should be noted here that the Asian economies with higher productivity and performances express the will and ability of the region’s cultures to make a profound impact on the changes taking place there.Japan’s proximity to helping the spread of “Asian development” in cascades takes place with stimulating local cultural decodings.Asian entrepreneurship show that its organizational models bear the specificities.Community and cultural dimensions are part of this dynamism.The philosophy of Yin and Yan can explain perfectly the transformation and the dynamism of the Asian economies.The spirit and “materials” economics structures are working in “harmony”.
While on the African continent,economic science with its reductionist models helped by the expertise of the development industry does not let the traditions and the capacities of the actors breathe. Everything is thought out,organized and transposed from the outside.Africa was thought of as a set of empty boxes that had to be filled by formal institutions,financing for development and,after them,technologies and turnkey factories.The economic thought that has preoccupied them with their future has omitted that these countries also have their trajectories,their histories,their traditions and their way of conceiving change.The development models proposed for these South countries are the latter result from a reductionist,linear and mechanistic conception.This is the epistemological legacy of the ideology of natural laws.In its own way,in the seventies,Marxism,which inspired certain models of development,is no exception.Algeria is one of the countries that has paid the most for this fatal mistake.Such experiences show that even massive investment does not produce development.If it is an investment fueled by the creativity of the outside,it sinks into symbolic consumption of unattainable development and,ultimately,by self-destruction of the regenerative capacities of the economy and local society.
In any economy that is a prisoner of the development paradigm,this paradoxical mechanism is at work since local skills as well as popular or endogenous knowledge are in no way mobilized.On the contrary,the development as it is led destroys them and orbits the local space according to the needs of the global forces of the industrialized economies,most often those of the former colonial metropolises.In essence,development produces ripple effects for the benefit of developed economies and their expertise.On one side is the importation of innovation and the other side isthe destruction without creation:the rent.
The concentration of research and development in the major industrialized countries with an old market institutions reflects this asymmetrical mechanism.This dispossession originates in the practices of packet development.In hindsight,it is quite obvious that when change comes from the depths of a society,it fails irreparably.The artificial graft does not take.Clearly,the formal economies created in areas like Africa and the Arab world through development expertise are becoming economies of rent.These national economies produce,fundamentally,debt,poverty and dependency.And,finally,they release migratory flows in all directions mainly to the countries of the North.Thus,everything happens as if the development created its opposite.This is easily explained since everything has been designed and executed without the participation of the populations concerned and without intercultural exchanges.Only local elites and multinationals make a profit.The adopted currency of the mimetic development is worthy of the formula of the philosopher Kant 〔1〕“I need not think,if I can pay”.The transformation that has taken place in these economies has created a rent situation that has not been accompanied by institutional changes in the point of view of North.
The “solvent” counterpart of the accounting of official economies comes mainly from the plundering of natural resources since these economies remain highly specialized in low value-added productions.The innovation spirit so characteristic of the entrepreneur of capitalism is almost absent.On the contrary,it organizes its absence by economic science itself and by the plunder of local knowledge.It is the political economy that defines that this or that country has an advantage in producing a particular product.So the impoverishing countries are the ones it plans to produce goods that exclude their participation from global collective intelligence.This is perfectly the case,in life size,of Africa and the Arab world.These are reduced to being a reserve for the machine of the globally rich countries.Africa and the Arab world are seen as reservoirs but not as territories with their own knowledge and capabilities that can enrich humanity with unrecognized values and knowledge.
In the structures of their respective economies,the work of nature (oil,minerals,export crops,tourism) is of alarming proportions compared to creative and innovative human work.In this regard,the dominant practices of development and globalization,conceived as an extension of capitalism,are similar to putting the endogenous capacities of these geographical areas in unemployment.Innovation is concentrated in the most developed economies in the criteria of true capitalism and in the other,a simple destruction without creation.However,just like nature,societies and economies have a horror of the void and it is the so-called “informal” practices that fill it.This explains one of the biggest paradoxes of so-called developing economies,the inertia of the formal and the vitality of the informal.
Ⅱ.Culture and development :beyond materialism and capitalism
In capitalism,it is on the side of production and innovation that this great transformation will find its model of leader in the heroic figure of the entrepreneur.Thus,the capitalist enterprise appears as the mode of organization most compatible with the imperatives of this material and merchant civilization.The company is synonymous with the grip on man and nature as exploitable resources to thank you.If the culture of control and domination has separated man from nature,borrowing the path of “hard” sciences,the sciences of man dispossess him of himself.They become sciences and knowledge of control and organization according to the imperatives of the finality of the enterprise of capitalism.
Moreover,the innovative spirit characteristic of this economic system finds an illustration in Cartesian rationalism and English empiricism.Descartes states that “Knowledge will make us masters and possessors of nature” to which Francis Bacon,the English empiricist,responds:“Knowledge is power”.Between them,these two quotes sum up in depth the spirit that animates the culture of capitalism:a will to power.They find their economic translation in K.Marx〔2〕 when he lets slip this almost religious formula:“Accumulate,Accumulate,it is the law of the prophets”.In a softer tone,Adam Smith sees the full development of capitalism and the opulent society as a “merchant society” whose harmony operates through the infamous “invisible hand” of the market.
“哎哟，宫保鸡丁啊……那个香啊……”门外刁先生拉长了声音在大发感慨。叶晓晓仿佛能看见他挺着瘦弱的胸脯，伸长了脖子，大张着嘴在夸张地打呵欠。
In parallel with the division of labor whose modes of organization have evolved from “factory despotism” to the search for greater employee participation in the most successful contemporary companies,the management of organizations has gradually opened up to the importance of human resources and organizational cultures.In these changes,everything happens as if we were moving from the end of the “quantity reign” to a world of quality and diversity.It is this requirement that forces the human sciences,after their break-up,to a recomposition where the cultures,the modes of communication and coordination,the importance of the belonging and the network as well as those of shared knowledge at the base are taken into consideration.
In times of immaterial economy,production can not be reduced to the production of merchantable material goods.Services gain ground first in terms of the market economy itself and then in terms of dissenting economic forms of life such as the social and solidarity economy.These economies come to the rescue of the economic and social failures of a market economy that no longer has as its objective itself.The current emphasis on intangible investment,knowledge and,more broadly,cultural and institutional dimensions is a paradigm shift in the approach of organizations and economic systems.The conceptions of the industrial society,still dominant,are in rapid transition with these new configurations.These find their impulses in knowledge,source of new discoveries and modes of organization.This imperative is concretely translated into the competitive advantages that R & D provides.Capitalism seeks a fusion with knowledge,one that allows it to increase its profits even if it is at the expense of bio diversity and cultural diversity.
Since the end of the sixties of the last century,the fordism model has been progressively disrupted.Fordism was,and since Adam Smith’s concept on the division of labor,the culmination of a kind of organizational objectivity of work.He arranged a historic wage relationship,on which developed a path of industrial economic growth;This is reflected in particular in the historic phase of the glorious Thirties,and reflected a compromise between capital and labor,very permissive for the accumulation of capital gains,by a clear indexation of wages to the levels of productivity attained.However,the disruption of the hierarchical foundations of this relationship has been materialized by the rise to vogue of productive models characterized by working relationships calmed in terms of hierarchy,distinguished by logics of horizontal coordination.It is marked,in fact,by a transformation in the socio-technical conditions of production inherent in the capital-labor relationship,mainly through an increase in technical progress and the recognition of a productive determinism in the knowledge and knowledge of the workers.Indeed,the rapprochement between the technical progress of capital and the cognitive progress of work testifies to productive and organizational interactions that consolidate capitalist development.In fact,the reality of immaterial work,within the cognitive situation of the post-industrial capitalism,suggests a very rich and large contemplation of the present nature of the immaterial capital-work ratio.Therefore,“the big transformation” of modern capitalism,in terms of work organising,has a large “employment reasons”,that are mainly subjective.In this regard,immaterial work,which reaffirms subjective powers of acting in the production process,updates the dialectic of conflictuality in relation with the capital.Therefore,the adjustment,the re-socialisation of immaterial work-capital crisis seems to be more and more unlimited.
Indeed,the Marxist definition of Capitalism try to explain why successful capitalist economies enjoyed historically unprecedented rates of productivity growth. This point of views lead Marxists to define Capitalism as a system of compulsion.In fact,capitalism is characterized by market compulsion which ensure that both capitalists and workers have to continuously strive to improve their performance just in order to survive (Khan 2005,p.70)
By experience,innovative capitalism in the Schumpeterian sense can not be decreed from top to bottom.In other words,the culture of capitalism does not travel with the economic models that can be elaborated on its functioning.This culture derives its deepest meaning from the worldview and the man forged in Europe by the intellectual and political contributions of the Italian Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment.Indeed,the emergence of capitalism was encouraged by a philosophical visions to dominant and to control the nature.This idea played a bigrole to build an economic system based on concept such as:productivity,market,growth,private ownership.For orthodox economist the capitalism is defined by the market coordination of all activities
Marx pointed out that capitalism is indeed a unique system of property rights,where,for the first time,the market operates in such a way that productivity is rapidly enhanced and technological progress happens is a sustained manner (Khan 2005,p.73-74).
在不同 α 和T处以 ln （ 1 - α ） [ - l n （ 1- α ）]、1 T对ln（ dα dT）作二元线性回归分析，计算可得：n = 2/5、A = 806 129 s-1。
We argue with Mushtaq Husain Khan (Khan 2005,p.69) that for Marxists,Capitalism is a specific relationship between classes of owners and non-owners of the means of production,such that,not only do capitalists own the means of production,but workers are forced to work for capitalists in order to survive.Both non-Marxist and Marxist definitions of capitalism try to capture the key institutional features that can explain the much higher productivity and productivity growth of the capitalist system...
大学老师并非所授的课程都是自己的专项，许多学校的体育老师具备一专多能的水平.这就导致大学体育老师有的既给学生上足球课，同时又给大学生上篮球课.这就牵制了老师的精力，使其不能深入某一特定课程.也有一些老师理论知识很好，但随着年龄的增长，实践能力偏弱，不利于俱乐部模式的开展.
小学语文选取的课文，大多都是来源于生活，是对生活的一种体验。其实对于核心文化素质的培养也是这样，从生活中让学生体验到文化素质的意义，那学生的综合素质和情感都会更进一步提升。在语文课堂上和平时生活中，教师可以让学生仔细体会生活，通过对生活的感悟来提升自己的理解感知能力，从而激发情感，教化育人。例如，学习古诗《静夜思》时，教师就可以运用体验式教学，联合学生的实际或者自身的故事，给学生讲述离开亲人的无奈与痛楚，从而引导学生对于挂念父母亲人的这种思乡之情的体会和理解。并激发出学生孝顺父母的情感，达到情感和主旨的再次升华。这样对于学生体验式的培养，也有助于提高学生的核心素质。
Beyond the reductionism of the orthodox economy,it is,in reality,a true civilization that gives priority to economic values.Human progress is reduced to material progress defined and filtered by the rationality of profit.This commodification is parallel to an individualism that wanted to be liberating.The transfer of this particular anthropological conception into economics takes on its full meaning with the concept of homo oeconomicus.This sinister science conceives man as a selfish,rational and calculating individual.The motives of his behavior are reduced to the interest that is the object of a strategy that maximizes utility or profit.
Criticism of the dominant economic thinking of capitalism suggests the importance of the cultural and institutional dimensions of enterprise as a human community.This observation being made,diversity arises and,with it,the contingencies and peculiarities of each organization and each society.And,it is not a coincidence that cultures and business stories have gained their place in management reviews.As managerial thinking progresses,it approaches man and ethical and philosophical considerations.In the field,alongside training and skills,the governance of complex systems,the company is the very example,rediscovers the role of shared beliefs in the performance of organizations.
A：根据十九大精神，我们企业已经进入了新的发展阶段。前些年我们已经着手进行了调整转型，现在需要在这个基础上进一步思考持续发展的问题。当前公司面临的任务是印刷产业的转型升级、环保治理，等等。我们认为，在新的形势下，二二〇七工厂，应当把服务首都功能和为军服务保障统一起来，这是企业持续发展的基础，是体现企业存在价值的重要方面。
问题导向教学（Problem Based Learning，PBL）又称循问教学，是指在教学中以小组讨论为形式、以问题为主线，教师采用一定方式引导学生解决问题的教学方法。其教学目标是着重培养学生自学能力、分析和解决问题能力、实践能力、团队合作能力以及创新性思维等。它不仅仅是一种教学模式，更是一种重要的教学理念。
Notes :
〔1〕Immanuel Kant:Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men,long after nature has released them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes),nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity,and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians.It is so easy to be immature.If I have a book to serve as my understanding,a pastor to serve as my conscience,a physician to determine my diet for me,and so on,I need not exert myself at all.I need not think,if only I can pay:others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.
〔2〕Initially he criticised Feuerbach for seeing people as individuals struggling to fulfil a given “human nature”,rather than as social beings.However,he soon moved beyond Feuerbach’s materialism.He did this in two ways.First,he extended Feuerbach’s materialist philosophy to all dominant ideas prevailing in society,beyond religion to ideology and people’s conception of society as a whole.Second,he extended Feuerbach’s ideas to history.Feuerbach’s analysis had been entirely ahistorical and non-dialectical:humans satisfy an emotional need through religion,but the origin of that need remains unexplained and unchanging whether satisfied by God or not.Marx sees the solution to this problem in material conditions.Human consciousness is critical in Marx’s thought,but it can only be understood in relation to historical,social and material circumstances.In this way,Marx establishes a close relationship between dialectics and history,which would become a cornerstone of his own method.Consciousness is primarily determined by material conditions but these themselves evolve dialec- tically through human history...This divorce between reality (or content or essence) and the way it appears (or form) is a central aspect of Marx’s (dialectical) thought.It forges the link between abstract concepts (such as class and value for example) and their concrete and practical presence in everyday life (through wages,prices and profits),pp.3-4.
Marx method:Marx’s method cannot be summarised into a set of universal rules;specific applications of his materialist dialectics should be developed in order to address each problem.The best- known example of the application of Marx’s method is his critical examination of capitalism in Capital.In this work,Marx’s approach has five important broad features.These will be added to and refined,often implicitly,throughout the text,p.4
大明路功能定位为南北方向的主干路，永乐路为支路，路口东北象限是正在建设的医疗中心一期，东南象限是规划预留的医疗中心二期，西南和西北象限是两个现状的老小区。其中医疗中心的三个出入口的作用为：大明路门口为大门，同时是急救车流入口；永乐路门口为门诊入口，东风河路门口为医疗中心后门。见图2。
沉管底板处海床及对应远场处海床的有效应力路径也可以反映结构-海床系统的渐进液化历程。图5中，沉管远、近场海床平均有效应力随波浪循环周数增大不断减小，不同的是，沉管底板处海床由于发生液化，p′逼近0。同样对偏应力可以发现，沉管底板处海床偏应力s由波浪作用初始阶段的往复振荡迅速衰减至0(正应力和剪应力都接近0)。
First,social phenomena exist,and can be understood,only in their historical context.
Theory loses its validity if pushed beyond its historical and social limits.This is a consequence of the need for concepts to be drawn out from the societies they are designed to address.
In contrast with idealism,Marx’s analysis is internally structured by the relationship between theory and history.
Materialist dialectics identifies the key concepts,structures,relationships and levels of analysis required for the explanation.
Marx’s method focuses upon historical change.
Reference :
〔1〕Khan,Mushtaq Husain,The Capitalist Transformation.In The Origins of Development Economics:How Schools of Economic Thought Have Addressed Development.Jomo,K.S.and Reinert,Eric S.eds.London:Zed Press,2005,pp.69-80.
〔2〕Marx,Karl,Marx to J.Weydemeyer,Selected Works of Marx and Engels,London:Lawrence & Wishart,1968,p.679.
DOI： 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1698.2019.02.018
About the author：Mustapha Machrafi,professor,Faculty of Law,Economics and Social Science,Mohammed V University.
标签：CAPITALISM论文; MARXISM论文; sub-Saharan论文; AFRICA论文; POLITICAL论文; ECONOMY论文; PARADIGM论文; SHIFT论文; Faculty of Law论文; Economics and Social Science Mohammed V University论文;