The main purpose of this second article devoted to T. Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (the first was published in the previous issue of Actuel Marx) is to introduce our alternative reading of history. The tendencies manifest during the last decades of the 20th century and the early 21st century are not, it is argued, the replication of the tendencies which prevailed prior to World War I. The starting-point for our analysis is the beginning of the 20th century, a (...) moment characterized by the dynamics of a “managerial capitalism” built around the “tripolar” class pattern of capitalists, managers, and popular classes. The main quantitative manifestation of these trends was the steady rise in the share accounted for by wages (compared to capital income) in the income of upper classes (notably the top 1 percent). In place of Piketty’s impact of shocks, we focus on the chain of successive configurations of class domination and alliances, in a succession of “social orders” marking the historical advance of managerial capitalism : the first financial hegemony, in the years leading up to the Great Depression ; the postwar social-democratic compromise ; and its successor, neoliberalism, involving a new alliance to the right, between the managerial and popular classes. (shrink)

This the first part of a study (in two parts) devoted to Piketty’s theses on the history of capitalism. A summary of Pikety’s analysis is first presented, concerning the dynamics of total wealth (measured as a ratio to national income) and its components, and the tendency of wealth and income inequalities within major capitalist countries. The amplitude of the fall of total wealth in the United-Kingdom and France during World War I is questioned. Piketty explains the profile of these variables (...) concerning wealth and wealth inequalities in reference to historical mechanisms in which the rate of growth of output, the rate of savings, and the return on wealth are considered. The relevance of these mechanisms is basically questioned. We interpret the third component of wealth, other domestic capital, as a form of the capital of enterprises and substitute an alternative, more performing, model to account for the profile of this variable. (shrink)

Cet article constitue la réponse à une note critique publiée dans le n° 71 d’ Actuel Marx, dans laquelle Fabien Foureault discutait les travaux de G. Duménil et D. Lévy concernant l’actuelle transition entre le capitalisme et un nouveau mode de production, le managérialisme. Le premier argument est le fait que les hauts managers sont rétribués par la distribution de stock-options, considérés comme des revenus du capital par Foureault bien que ces options n’aient pas de rapport avec la détention antérieure (...) d’actions par les bénéficiaires. La forme de la rémunération l’emporte sur les pratiques qui la motivent. Foureault utilise, par ailleurs, les calculs réalisés au sein des Distributional National Accounts qui montrent que la part des revenus du capital au sein du revenu total du 1 % supérieur de la hiérarchie des revenus n’a pas décru. Ces nouvelles estimations sont, pour GD et DL, inutilisables hors des finalités comparatives pour lesquelles elles ont été conçues. Enfin, les auteurs considèrent que Foureault se méprend radicalement quant à la nature de leurs interprétations politiques. (shrink)

In their debate here Jacques Bidet, Gérard Duménil and Urs Lindner confront their interpretations of Marx’s Capital, discussing the usages to be made of it today. Questions addressed here include the place of the philosophy, economics, and social sciences, in the critique of political economy. They examine the points where Marx’s analysis has been reformulated or completed, to what extent it has been rendered obsolete by historical evolutions, and in what respect it still retains its pertinence. These are the principal (...) questions addressed in the discussion. (shrink)

On Marx et Marxisms. In response to the questions addressed by Jacques Bidet and Bruno Tinel, Gérard Duménil, Michael Löwy and Emmanuel Renault here outline the approach they adopted in their two recently published books on Marx, and on Marxisms . The questions raised here mainly hinge on the articulation between the political, the philosophical and the economic dimension of Marx’s writings, and the way these can be mobilised within contemporary debates.

G. Duménil and M. Vakaloulis here interview J. Lojkine about his latest book, Farewell to the Middle Class. Lojkine’s intention is to question and demystify the ideology of « the middle class », an ideology which is both political (propagated and relayed by social-democracy) and « erudite », insofar as it corresponds to the sociological thesis of the « generalisation of the middle class ». Lojkine here answers questions dealing with the economic and political presuppositions of his critique of the (...) «generalisation of the middle class ». In what way are « managers » affected by the current social transformations? What are the alliances within which they find themselves enrolled? How is one to account for the fragmentation of the current class of wage-earners, and to what type of political unification might it eventually lead? (shrink)

The Crises of the Economy-World and the Overcoming of Capitalism : From the 1970s to the New Century. The current crisis of neoliberalism can only be understood if we resituate it within the context of the historical dynamic of the capitalist mode of production. The precedent most often cited is that of the 1929 crash. There is however another comparison which is equally apposite, the comparison with the structural crisis of the 1970s. How are we to compare the economic factors (...) which are involved here, the conditions which led to the crisis and their political consequences ? Can we argue that the current crisis is ushering in a new phase of capitalism, or that it is opening up a number of alternative paths ? These are some of the crucial issues addressed here by Gérard Duménil in the questions put to Immanuel Wallerstein. (shrink)

The central issue in this paper is the overtaking of neoliberalism by a possible new “social order”, a new phase in the history of capitalism. In contemporary capitalism, the “upper classes”—capitalist classes, the classes of managers and officials—jointly ensure the control of the means of production. Their common hegemony in neoliberalism is supported by the alliance at the top of the social hierarchies, under the leadership of capitalist classes. This hegemony could be continued beyond neoliberalism, though under new forms. A (...) first such potential social order is similar to neoliberalism, which it prolongs, a “third financial hegemony”. (Neoliberalism represented the “second financial hegemony”; the first prevailed before the Great Depression of the 1930s). The other social order can be described as a “neomanagerialism”. While the same alliance would prevail at the top, the leadership would here be that of the managerial class, and would involve much stronger state intervention. (Another opportunity, albeit one which we unfortunately deem unlikely, would be the alliance between popular classes and managers, a “social-managerialism”). A comparison between the United states and China highlights the relevance of neomanagerialism. The strong neomanagerial features of China show the potential efficiency of this social configuration. A turn to neomanagerialism would probably be the only way of preserving what can be saved of U.S. international hegemony. (shrink)

Marx’s conceptualization of history emphasizes the succession of modes of production. However the dynamics of productive forces and relations of production are continuous. Central to this analysis is the “socialization of production” and the rise of the managerial class. These trends require the adjustment of institutions, notably those in which the ownership of the means of production is expressed, an adjustment that is often implemented under the pressure of structural crises. The article illustrates these dynamics in the United States since (...) the late 19th century, in particular in relation to the tripolar class patterns, capitalists, popular classes and managerial class. What is involved is the gradual emergence of a new mode of production whose dominant class is intended to be the managerial class. A “social order” is a shorter period marked by the configuration of class dominations and alliances: the hegemony of capitalist classes during the first third of the 20th century, the alliance between managers and popular classes after the Great Depression and World War II, and neoliberalism as a new hegemony of capitalists in alliance with managers. The approach in terms of social orders allows for the interpretation of the state as the institutional “locus” in which social orders are formed, rather than as the exclusive domination of a ruling class. (shrink)

The central issue in this paper is the overtaking of neoliberalism by a possible new “social order”, a new phase in the history of capitalism. In contemporary capitalism, the “upper classes”—capitalist classes, the classes of managers and officials—jointly ensure the control of the means of production. Their common hegemony in neoliberalism is supported by the alliance at the top of the social hierarchies, under the leadership of capitalist classes. This hegemony could be continued beyond neoliberalism, though under new forms. A (...) first such potential social order is similar to neoliberalism, which it prolongs, a “third financial hegemony”. (Neoliberalism represented the “second financial hegemony”; the first prevailed before the Great Depression of the 1930s). The other social order can be described as a “neomanagerialism”. While the same alliance would prevail at the top, the leadership would here be that of the managerial class, and would involve much stronger state intervention. (Another opportunity, albeit one which we unfortunately deem unlikely, would be the alliance between popular classes and managers, a “social-managerialism”). A comparison between the United states and China highlights the relevance of neomanagerialism. The strong neomanagerial features of China show the potential efficiency of this social configuration. A turn to neomanagerialism would probably be the only way of preserving what can be saved of U.S. international hegemony. (shrink)

In the analysis of contemporary capitalism, it is important to combine neoliberalism (the strengthening of the power of the capitalist class, in a new phase) and imperialism (the exploitation of peripherical countries). The contradictions of this newsocial order are numerous: first, the resistances that it fosters, then the desquilibria evident, in particular, in the United States. But imperialism at the age of neoliberalism also manifests itself in a new configuration particularly favorable to this country: the export of capitals and the (...) financing of the US economy by the rest of the world. In the United States, this era can also be characterized by the new configuration of class alliances at the top of the social hierarchy : big capitalist owners and top managers. This consolidation manifests itself in the ongoing drift to the right, when the necessity of a compromise uniting managers and popular classes, as in the Keynesian compromise, is urgent. (shrink)

This brief article comments on Moshe Lewin’s last book (Le siècle soviétique, Fayard, Paris, 2003). The book can be considered as the best documented study of Soviet Union. Lewin’s characterisation of the soviet system as bureaucratic absolutism is, however, disappointing, and contrasts with the identification of the new “managerial” ruling class, its grip on resourses and state power.

Dans cet entretien consacré à leur livre Managerial Capitalism : Ownership, management and the coming new mode of production (Pluto Press, 2018), G. Duménil et D. Lévy reviennent sur les implications de leur analyse du capitalisme managérial pour l’étude du capitalisme historique, de ses structures de classes fondamentales, et de ses alliances de pouvoirs variables. La thèse du marxisme traditionnel identifiant les managers à une fraction de classe capitaliste s’en trouve critiquée, de même que les présupposés véhiculés par le concept (...) de « capitalisme d’État ». Invités à revenir plus précisément sur leur distinction entre modes de production et « ordres sociaux », comme configurations variables de hiérarchies de pouvoirs et d’alliances de classe, les auteurs clarifient les raisons pour lesquelles ils introduisent une nouvelle catégorie de mode de production managérial qui impose de repenser le mode de production capitaliste lui-même suivant une logique de « l’hybridité ». Celle-ci permet de complexifier les tendances du capitalisme historique sur la longue durée, d’approfondir l’analyse de classe du capitalisme managérial, et d’y spécifier différentiellement, par rapport au « compromis » d’après-guerre (caractérisé par une alliance entre managers et classes populaires sous la direction des premiers), le dernier ordre social en date caractérisé par une alliance « au sommet » entre managers et capitalistes (au détriment des classes populaires) : le néolibéralisme. (shrink)

The Progress of the Left in Latin America: Governments, Social Movements, the Struggles of the Amerindian Populations Gérard Duménil and Michaël Löwy here interview Michel Lemoine about the nature of the governments currently in office in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia and Venezuela. What contribution can these governments make to the task of establishing an anti-imperialist front? What are the specific features of the Latin American resistance to neo-liberalism, in view of the articulation between this resistance and the struggles of the (...) Amerindian populations? How is one to assess the manner in which Chavez defines and attempts to implement his project of a “socialism for the twenty-first century”. These are the principal questions addressed here. (shrink)

The new military strategy of the US responds to political motivations, but it must also be understood in relation to the economic situation. The US economy is not in a permanent crisis since the 1970, although growth rates remain comparatively low and a threat of financial crisis exists, due to domestic factors and risks of contagion from the periphery. The share of military spending in GDP is low, and the US has the capability to finance new wars. The military course (...) must be understood as part of the overall framework of global US hegemony, given the importance of its interest abroad. (shrink)

In the analysis of contemporary capitalism, it is important to combine neoliberalism (the strengthening of the power of the capitalist class, in a new phase) and imperialism (the exploitation of peripherical countries). The contradictions of this newsocial order are numerous: first, the resistances that it fosters, then the desquilibria evident, in particular, in the United States. But imperialism at the age of neoliberalism also manifests itself in a new configuration particularly favorable to this country: the export of capitals and the (...) financing of the US economy by the rest of the world. In the United States, this era can also be characterized by the new configuration of class alliances at the top of the social hierarchy : big capitalist owners and top managers. This consolidation manifests itself in the ongoing drift to the right, when the necessity of a compromise uniting managers and popular classes, as in the Keynesian compromise, is urgent. (shrink)

ome Remarks on the Crisis of Capitalism What are the causes and consequences of the crisis of capitalism ? What are the plausible scenarios forthe outcome of the crisis ? To what extent is the current crisis comparable to that of 1929, and to whatextent does it differ from the crisis of the 1970s ? To what extent can one speak of a crisis of neoliberalism ? These are some of the questions which the authors of The Crisis of Neoliberalism (...) address here. (shrink)

In the analysis of contemporary capitalism, it is important to combine neoliberalism (the strengthening of the power of the capitalist class, in a new phase) and imperialism (the exploitation of peripherical countries). The contradictions of this newsocial order are numerous: first, the resistances that it fosters, then the desquilibria evident, in particular, in the United States. But imperialism at the age of neoliberalism also manifests itself in a new configuration particularly favorable to this country: the export of capitals and the (...) financing of the US economy by the rest of the world. In the United States, this era can also be characterized by the new configuration of class alliances at the top of the social hierarchy : big capitalist owners and top managers. This consolidation manifests itself in the ongoing drift to the right, when the necessity of a compromise uniting managers and popular classes, as in the Keynesian compromise, is urgent. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie Jahrgang: 2 Heft: 2 Seiten: 219-252.

This paper discusses one important component of the analysis of the decline of the profit rate in recent decades in Robert Brenner's Economics of Global Turbulence. Our single focus in this paper is Brenner's implicit theory of distribution.