J. Ron Stanfield

On Social Economics

The institutional situation of the world, most especially the in? dustrial democracies, has grown desperately precarious. A major ad? justment of our habitual ways and means is mandatory if we are to save ourselves alive as a people and culture from this precarious situation.1 This adjustment will require clear forethought and in? sight which can only be forthcoming if we reformulate our philosophi? cal and ideological habits. It should be intuitively obvious to the reader that a conscious institutional adjustment cannot be effected by people enamored of the habitual knowledge and beliefs of the in? stitutional configuration which is to undergo reformation. Since the economist is so important in the ideational structure of our culture, (s)he will be important in the alteration of thinking habits. The capitalist epoch is the economic epoch in which the economy has become semi-autonomous and culturally predominant. The results are all about us for the better and the worse. One result

Limited Capitalism, Institutionalism, and Marxism

This chapter examines a part of the relationship between institutionalism and Marxism. Particular attention is given to Ayres (1946), Galbraith (1967), and Baran and Sweezy (1966). The procedure of the chapter is to review Ayres’ analysis of the underconsumption tendency of capitalism and demonstrate its remarkable similarity to the analysis of Baran and Sweezy. Then it is argued that Galbraith’s analysis identifies the capitalist solution to this problem and that this analysis is important to contemporary Marxism. Finally, it is argued that Galbraith’s analysis is itself incomplete without something like the Marxist theory of alienation.

MARX'S SOCIAL ECONOMICS: THE THEORY OF ALIENATION*

The theory of alienation is a convenient expository medium to discuss Marxs social economics. I proceed by considering, first, alien control of the work process; and, second, the several forms of aliena? tion. Since I have discussed the scope and method of social economics in an earlier issue of this journal [Stanfield, 1978], I conclude by briefly relating the theory of alienation to my previous characteriza? tion of social economics. The concept alienation has a broad and long place in intellectual history. It has long been associated with a variety of phenomena of humanitys unhappiness. The feeling or status of being powerless, isolated, meaningless, and the like have been attributed to or de? scribed as alienation. As might be expected, the views as to the source and nature of alienation also differ widely. Alienation has been viewed as a fall from the grace of God, as a curse of civilization which represses humanity and estranges it from some pristine natural state, or as being part and parcel of the process of human objectification of the world. Concern here, of course, is with the Marxist version of alienation and its relation to Marxs social economics. Marx found in work the source of humanness and human consciousness. It follows that he would have looked to work for the source of alienation. The foun? dation of Marxs theory of alienation is alienated labor. Alienation is fundamentally the estrangement of humanity from its truly human existence, the work process.

Capitalist Evolution and Soviet Evolution

The purpose of this paper is to show that a historical model of capitalist development is useful in the analysis of Soviet Socialist evolution.1 The procedure is to compare two periods of the Soviet experience with appropriate periods of Western capitalist experience. The Soviet industrialization period is compared to the emergence of capitalism in England and the post-Stalin Soviet period is compared with the emergence of mature or corporate capitalism. A final sec? tion draws some implications from this analysis. A word of explanation concerning periodization should help clarify for the reader the argument to be unfolded below. The comparison of the Soviet industrialization period is made to early capitalist England because that represents the classic example of capitalist industrializa? tion. Both the literature generally and Marx specifically use the par? ticulars of the English case to articulate theories of capitalist origin and evolution. More recently, however, the former colonies across the Atlantic have surpassed Britain and become the prototypical case of mature capitalism. The literature is now cast with the United States of America as the principal referent. In other words, for the original and mature periods of capitalist civilization first British and now American capitalism represent the cutting edge of history. It is therefore appropriate that the Soviet comparison be made in the first instance?that of industrialization?to Britain, and in the sec? ond instance?that of post-World War II modernization or contempo rization?to the U.S.A.