首页> 外文期刊>Industrial and Corporate Change >Notes and Comments Comment on Nathan Rosenberg, 'Was Schumpeter a Marxist?'
【24h】

Notes and Comments Comment on Nathan Rosenberg, 'Was Schumpeter a Marxist?'

机译:注释和评论关于内森·罗森伯格,“熊彼特是马克思主义者吗?”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

A leading and respected analyst of the dynamics of industrial capitalism, Nathan Rosenberg is doing economists an important service by reminding them that Joseph Schumpeter was a great admirer of Karl Marx (Rosenberg, 2011). What drew Schumpeter to Marx was, as Rosenberg states toward the beginning of his essay, the intellectual position that capitalism cannot be understood as a general equilibrium system of market exchange. What Marx and Schumpeter had in common was an intellectual approach to analyzing the economy that emphasized the role of technological change in the development process. And what makes both Schumpeter and Marx relevant today is that the economists whose thinking dominates the profession continue to conceive of the economic system as a general equilibrium of market exchange while they ignore the technological transformations that provide the foundations for economic development. A century after the publication of The Theory of Economic Development (Schumpeter, 1934), today's economists still have a lot to learn from Schumpeter-including some critical insights that Schumpeter got from Marx and a least one lesson that Schumpeter should have learned from Marx. As Rosenberg quotes Schumpeter, a general equilibrium of market exchange describes, by definition, a system at rest, with no real per capita economic growth. Influenced by Walrasian general equilibrium theory, Schumpeter (1934) called it the "circular flow of economic life as conditioned by given circumstances." But market exchange cannot explain the factory system of the British industrial revolution on which Marx based his theory of capitalist development. Nor can it explain the type of managerial capitalism that emerged as dominant in the first half of the 20th century, coterminous with Schumpeter's career. Both Marx and Schumpeter conceptualized capitalism as a system in which technological change constantly disrupts a general equilibrium of market exchange.
机译:内森·罗森伯格(Nathan Rosenberg)是一位对工业资本主义动力的著名分析家,为经济学家提供了重要的服务,他提醒他们约瑟夫·熊彼特(Joseph Schumpeter)是卡尔·马克思的伟大仰慕者(Rosenberg,2011)。正如罗森伯格在论文开始时所说的那样,吸引熊彼特的是马克思,这是一种知识分子的立场,即资本主义不能被理解为市场交易的一般均衡系统。马克思和熊彼特的共同点是一种理性的经济分析方法,强调技术变革在发展过程中的作用。如今,使熊彼特和马克思都具有影响力的是,以思想为主导的经济学家们继续将经济体系视为市场交换的总体平衡,而忽略了为经济发展奠定基础的技术变革。在《经济发展理论》(熊彼特,1934年)出版一个世纪之后,今天的经济学家仍然需要向熊彼特学习很多东西,包括熊彼特从马克思那里得到的一些重要见解,以及熊彼特应该从马克思那里学到的至少一课。正如罗森伯格(Rosenberg)引述熊彼特(Schumpeter)所说,市场交流的一般均衡从定义上描述了一种静止的系统,没有人均实际经济增长。受到沃尔拉什一般均衡理论的影响,熊彼特(Schumpeter,1934)称其为“受特定情况制约的经济生活的循环流动”。但是市场交换不能解释马克思以其资本主义发展理论为基础的英国工业革命的工厂制度。它也无法解释在20世纪上半叶与熊彼特的职业生涯相伴而生的占主导地位的管理资本主义的类型。马克思和熊彼特都将资本主义概念化为一种系统,在该系统中,技术变革不断破坏市场交易的总体均衡。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号