Back نقد الاقتصاد السياسي Arabic Kritik der politischen Ökonomie German Critique of political economy English Crítica de la economía política Spanish نقد اقتصاد سیاسی Persian Critiques de l'économie French राजनीतिक अर्थव्यवस्था की आलोचना Hindi د سياسي اقتصاد نيوکه Pashto/Pushto Crítica da economia política Portuguese Критика политической экономии Russian

Ekonomikritik

Ekonomikritik är kritik av “det ekonomiska” i sig, och i synnerhet mot uppfattningen av "det ekonomiska" som ett samhälleligt a priori.[1][2][3][4][5] Ekonomikritiken menar att de praktiker, axiom och naturaliserade kategoriseringar som förekommer inom ramen för ekonomin är uppburna av samhälleliga (normativa) praktiker och metafysiska antaganden, snarare än några som helst förmenta "lagbundenheter" eller eviga sanningar.[1][6][7] Ekonomikritiker lutar sig ofta på historiska bevis för att det vi idag uppfattar som "det ekonomiska", inte är någonting evigt, utan snarare något relativt nytt som uppkommit i samband med moderniteten.[8][9][10][11][12] Den så kallade "ekonomin" ses alltså till följd av detta bara som ett (ofta högst suboptimalt) vis att fördela resurser som har förekommit genom människans historia. Det förekommer också att ekonomikritiker, men ibland också ekonomer själva, anser att de synsätt som praktiseras av ekonomer är felaktiga, eller direkt pseudovetenskapliga.[13][14][15]

Det finns idag många olika ekonomikritiska infallsvinklar, men vad de har gemensamt är kritik av vad som uppfattas som ekonomernas dogma och normativa praktiker.[16] Till följd av att ekonomikritiker kritiserar kategorin ekonomi i sig, är de inte intresserade av att skapa teoribildningar angående hur man ska kunna administrera och upprätthålla de samtida resursfördelningspraktikerna.[2][17][3]

  1. ^ [a b] Ruskin, John. Unto this Last. sid. 128–129. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/36541/pg36541-images.html. ”Observe, I neither impugn nor doubt the conclusions of the science if its terms are accepted. I am simply uninterested in them, as I should be in those of a science of gymnastics that assumed that men had no skeletons. It might be shown, on that supposition, that it would be advantageous to roll the students up into pellets, flatten them into cakes, or stretch them into cables; and that when these results were effected, the re-insertion of the skeleton would be attended with various inconveniences to their constitution. The reasoning might be admirable, the conclusions true, and the science deficient only inapplicability. Modern political economy stands on a precisely similar basis. Assuming, not that the human being has no skeleton, but that it is all skeleton, it founds an ossifiant theory of progress on this negation of a soul; and having shown the utmost that may be made of bones, and constructed a number of interesting geometrical figures with death's-heads and humeri, successfully proves the inconvenience of the reappearance of a soul among these corpuscular structures. I do not deny the truth of this theory: I simply deny its applicability to the present phase of the world.” 
  2. ^ [a b] Henderson, Willie (2000). John Ruskin's political economy. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-203-15946-2. OCLC 48139638. https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/48139638. ”[...]Ruskin attempted a methodological/scientific critique of political economy. He fixed on ideas of ‘natural laws’, ‘economic man’ and the prevailing notion of ‘value’ to point out gaps and inconsistencies in the system of classical economics.” 
  3. ^ [a b] Ruccio, David (10 December 2020). ”Toward a critique of political economy | MR Online”. mronline.org. https://mronline.org/2020/12/10/toward-a-critique-of-political-economy/. ”Marx arrives at conclusions and formulates new terms that run directly counter to those of Smith, Ricardo, and the other classical political economists.” 
  4. ^ Jung, Henrik (2019-01-01). ”Slagen av abstraktioner: Förnuftiga och reala abstraktioner i Marx ekonomikritik”. Lychnos: Årsbok för idé- och lärdomshistoria. ISSN 0076-1648. https://tidskriftenlychnos.se/article/view/21307. Läst 1 september 2021. 
  5. ^ ”MARX EKONOMIKRITIK | Fronesis”. https://fronesis.nu/nummer/marxekonomikritik/. Läst 1 september 2021. 
  6. ^ Peperell, Nicole. ”Beyond reification: Reclaiming Marx's Concept of the Fetish Character of the Commodity”. Kontradikce: A Journal for Critical Thought. https://kontradikce.flu.cas.cz/upload/__issues/kontradikce-2-49.pdf. ”The critical edge of Marx's analysis does not derive, therefore, from any sort of declaration that this impersonal social relation does not exist, or is not 'truly' impersonal. Instead, it derives from the demonstration of how such a peculiar and counter-intuitive sort of social relationMall:Snd one that possesses qualitative characteristics more normally associated with our interactions with non-social realityMall:Snd comes to be unintentionally generated in collective practice.”. 
  7. ^ Patterson, Orlando; Fosse, Ethan. ”Overreliance on the Pseudo-Science of Economics”. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/09/are-economists-overrated/overreliance-on-the-pseudo-science-of-economics. ”[...] the real-world implementation of mainstream economic ideas has been a string of massive failures. Economic thinking undergirded the "deregulation" mantra leading up to the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and has fared no better in attempts to "fix" the ongoing crisis in Europe. [...] nowhere is the discipline's failure more apparent than in the area of development economics. In fact, the only countries that have effectively transformed from the "Third" to the "First World" since World War II violated the main principles of current and previous economic orthodoxies: [...] Only recently have economists come to accept the primacy of institutions in explaining and promoting economic growth, a position long held by sociologists [...]”  (OpEd)
  8. ^ ”The Poverty of Philosophy - Chapter 2.1”. www.marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm. Läst 1 september 2021. ”When the economists say that present-day relations – the relations of bourgeois production – are natural, they imply that these are the relations in which wealth is created and productive forces developed in conformity with the laws of nature. These relations therefore are themselves natural laws independent of the influence of time. They are eternal laws which must always govern society. Thus, there has been history, but there is no longer any. There has been history, since there were the institutions of feudalism, and in these institutions of feudalism we find quite different relations of production from those of bourgeois society, which the economists try to pass off as natural and as such, eternal.” 
  9. ^ Chouquer, Gérard (2002-01-01). ”Alain Guerreau, L'avenir d'un passé incertain. Quelle histoire du Moyen Âge au XXIesiècle? Paris, Le Seuil, 2001.”. Études rurales (161–162). doi:10.4000/etudesrurales.106. ISSN 0014-2182. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/etudesrurales.106. 
  10. ^ Moishe., Postone (1995). Time, labor, and social domination : a reinterpretation of Marx's critical theory. sid. 130, 5. ISBN 0-521-56540-5. OCLC 910250140. http://worldcat.org/oclc/910250140 
  11. ^ Jönsson, Dan. ”John Ruskin: En brittisk 1800-talsaristokrat för vår tid? - OBS”. sverigesradio.se. Sveriges Radio. https://sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/1244376. ”Den klassiska nationalekonomin, som den utarbetats av John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith och David Ricardo, betraktade han som en sorts kollektivt hjärnsläpp ... [Transl. Ruskin viewed the classical political economy as it was developed by Mill, Smith, and Ricardo, as a kind of "collective mental lapse.]” 
  12. ^ Ruccio, David (10 December 2020). ”Toward a critique of political economy | MR Online”. mronline.org. https://mronline.org/2020/12/10/toward-a-critique-of-political-economy/. ”Second, Marx's concern is always with social and historical specificity, as against looking for or finding what others would consider being given and universal.” 
  13. ^ Badeen, Dennis; Murray, Patrick. ”A Marxian Critique of Neoclassical Economics' Reliance on Shadows of Capital's Constitutive Social Forms”. crisiscritique.org. http://crisiscritique.org/political11/Dennis%20Badeen%20and%20Patrick%20Murray-3.pdf.  Arkiverad 16 november 2021 hämtat från the Wayback Machine.
  14. ^ Murray, Patrick (March 2020). ”The Illusion of the Economic: Social Theory without Social Forms”. Critical Historical Studies 7 (1): sid. 19–27. doi:10.1086/708005. ISSN 2326-4462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/708005. ”"Bourgeois or capitalist production . . . is consequently for [Ricardo]," Marx writes, "not a specific definite mode of production, but simply the mode of production." [...] The illusion of the economic arises within what Marx calls the "bourgeois horizon," which trades in phenomenologically false bifurcations such as the purely subjective versus the purely objective, form versus content, forces versus relatisusons of production, the labor process versus the valorization process, distribution versus production, and more.”. 
  15. ^ ”The Poverty of Philosophy - Chapter 2.1”. www.marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm#s7. 
  16. ^ Ruda, Frank; Hamza, Agon (2016). ”Introduction: Critique of Political Economy”. Crisis and Critique 3 (3): sid. 5–7. http://crisiscritique.org/political11/Introduction-2.pdf.  Arkiverad 16 november 2021 hämtat från the Wayback Machine. ”Arkiverade kopian”. Arkiverad från originalet den 16 november 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20211116135722/http://crisiscritique.org/political11/Introduction-2.pdf. Läst 16 mars 2022. 
  17. ^ Ramsay, Anders (21 December 2009). ”Marx? Which Marx? Marx's work and its history of reception”. www.eurozine.com. https://www.eurozine.com/marx-which-marx/. ”When it is based on the naturalistic understanding, the entire theoretical edifice of the critique of political economy breaks down. What is left is a theory not entirely unlike Adam Smith's, one in which individual labour creates value, and the capacity to create value becomes an ontological determination of labour. With good reason, one could speak of a Smithian Marxism ...” 

Developed by StudentB