Борьба интересов при восхождении к информационному обществу
The paper discusses the semantic models that determine the practice of the Russian translation of the key terminology of Karl Marx, as well as the ensuing consequences of choosing a simplifying interpretational strategy for such a translation and determining its political pragmatics. This strategy is a request for a scientific concept that rejects the prospect of capitalist development, as well as the goals of propaganda and political education. The terms der Wert (value), das Wertding (valuable thing), die Wertgegenstaendlichkeit (value objectivity) were translated as «cost» in the canonical translation, enshrined in the publication of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism (1937). At the same time, two fundamentally different aspects of the product der Gebrauchswert (value as utility is a quality characteristic, not quantifiable) and der Tauschwert (exchange value, the ability to proportionally exchange) were translated, respectively, as use cost and exchange cost. This interpretation formed the basis of discursive practices in education, social sciences, journalism, and media.
The «value» translation versions were actually removed from scientific use. However, the «cost paradigm» significantly reduces the analysis of market relations and contexts. This is confirmed by the appeal to the original texts of the first and second editions of «Capital».
Discussions regarding the transfer of K.Marx’s terminology in «Capital» are not only instructive, but have important perspectives. Nowadays, the question has grown beyond the scope of a word dispute. The failure of value-to-value reduction is manifested in the problems of neoliberalistic marginalism, the coming to the fore social and cultural (neoinstitutionalism, «culture matters»), psychological and communicative (R.Taler) factors of economic relations. At the same time, the value nature of market relations is important both in concepts like «global value chains» (M. Porter, G. Jerreffy) and in the practices of transformative investment (Impact Investing), including on the blockchain platform. This forces to return to the conceptual content of the original terms and rethinking practices appropriate narration.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.