Contemporary Capitalism and the Critique of Political Economy: Methodological Aspects

Abstract

Recent changes in capitalism, especially the increasing role of the state, have brought up the question of the relationship of these changes to the general theory of capitalism. This also applies to a theory such as Marx's critique of political economy. The critique of political economy can be viewed as a theory which exposes the basic nature of the capitalist mode of production: it is the theory of a specific -the capitalist -social formation. The specificity of capitalism finds explanation in its predominant value and capital relations. Now, in the presentation of the critique of political economy, in Marx Capital , one should place emphasis on certain methodological solutions. In the first place, the presentation proceeds from the most abstract concepts to the most concrete, a movement which constitutes the crux of Marx's dialectic method. Secondly, we can distinguish between different levels in the presentation: the internal laws of capitalism and their mode of realization. This means that Marx not only revealed the laws of capitalism but also indicated how they find expression. In addition, it should be pointed out that Capital is not merely an abstract-logical discourse, rather we must also take into account, on the one hand, the relationship of the logical to the historical in Capital , and the laws of development which demonstrate the contradictory development of capitalism on the other.Monopoly theory has dealt with the question of how free competition was transformed into monopoly capitalism. This transformation is located on the level of the realization of the laws of capitalism, since the laws themselves (the internal nature of capitalism) do not change. In explaining the genesis of the monopoly it is necessary to analyze the exacerbation of the contradictions derived from capitalism's laws of development. Generally speaking, the question of the relationship of the historical development of the capitalist mode of production to the critique of political economy can be called the historicity problem. In its resolution, one must take into account the fact, first of all, that theories of the new stages of the development of capitalism have their own historical preconditions (in at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 15, 2015 asj.sagepub.com Downloaded from 370 particular, precursory empirical research), and secondly, that in spite of its pivotal position, the critique of political economy is not in itself sufficient for explaining transformations; it must be linked to other theories.

Cultural studies as a construct

“…Klaus Bruhn Jensen says more or less the same about the situation in Denmark: '[Cultural studies in Denmark] is not synonymous with the configuration of social and psychoanalytic theories that were, to a degree, imported from the European continent, rearticulated in the UK, and later reexported to the American market, as an alternative to mainstream sociology and literary studies' (Eskola and Vainikkala, 1994: 193 Sociologica (vol. 20(2), 1977): Kosonen, 1977;Noro, 1977;Schanz, 1977;Thomsen, 1977. 3. Matti Alestalo and Teuvo Räty (1994: 217-43) have nicely captured these years in an article on what they call the crisis of the 1960s and 1970s.…”