Revolutionary Economic Reasoning in the Context of Revolution: The Origins and Fate of Bolshevik Economics
By February 1917, the handful of future Bolshevik leaders of Russia were scattered all over the globe. Among the few things they had in common was a peculiar vision of the Russian economy and of global economic trends. That vision guided their revolutionary activity. Whether it was “correct” or not, they succeeded. With their grip on power secured, however, their economic reasoning had to confront new challenges, which eventually reshaped the original approach. The article reconstructs the origins of the Bolshevik economics and traces its developments after 1917.
The article is devoted to the influence of Giambattista Vico on Edward Said. It claims, first, that Vico inspired Said to engage in the intellectual-political project of Postcolonial Studies, and second, that Saidian reading of Vico is the most sophisticated, detailed and fresh left interpretation of the great Neapolitan philosopher in the twentieth century.
To answer this question the author analyses the nature of the revolutionary crisis in Russian traditional agrarian society and possibilities to overcome it by using different legal reform strategies. This bulk of social technologies was elaborated by Imperial administration in the period of Great Reforms and practically used at the beginning of XX-th Century in order to enforce agrarian transformation and to stop the Revolution in Russia. In the situation of unstable social balance, which is typical for all countries under modernization, danger of the revolutionary break was not fatal and could be avoided by skillful reformers. From this point of view the author makes representation of variable parameters of revolutionary conflict, analyses mistakes of liberal reformers and legal possibilities to overcome the revolutionary crisis of 1917.
This is a review of Rendle's scholarly study of Russian tsarist elites in 1917. The review analyses the main argument and the evidence provided in the book.
Chapter 6, by Denis Melnik, reviews the three periods in the development of economic science in Russia during the last two centuries. As is shown, these periods, for different reasons, provided an unfavorable context for the reception of Ricardo’s economics. For about a half of the nineteenth century the name of Ricardo was not unknown but his theory did not attract attention (Sections 2). During the period that started at the 1860s and ended with the Russian Revolution the consensus towards Ricardo among the majority of Russian economists was based on a respectful distance. Still, there were the attempts to actualize Ricardo’s economics. Nikolai Ivanovich Sieber, the first translator of Ricardo into Russian, regarded his theory as a preceding stage to Marx’s, while Yuli Galaktionovich Zhukovsky, who rejected Marxism from the very beginning, made an attempt to reformulate the Ricardo’s theory in terms not dissimilar to the later neoclassical interpretation. The subsequent rise of marginalist theory and the heated debates among the Marxists at the turn of the twentieth century resulted in a strive to ‘synthesize’ classical and marginalist approaches to value and distribution characteristic for a part of Russian economists. It was a background for Vladimir Karpovich Dmitriev’s original interpretation (Section 3). During the Soviet period the canonical version of the history of economic thought placed Ricardo as an immediate predecessor to Marx. A comparison between the approaches to Ricardo’s economics proposed by Issak Illich Rubin and Piero Sraffa (Section 4) allows to outline the difference between two lines in development of the classical approach in the twentieth century.
Collection is based on the extraordinary Kondratieff Readings conducted under II Russian Economic Congress, with the addition of new archival data about N.D. Kondratieff' family.
The chapter presents an overview of the development of economics in the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russia by focusing on the different interpretations of Ricardo’s theory prevailing over this period. The choice of the reference point will make the overview somewhat selective, but still it is not an arbitrary one. Ricardian theory entered Russia relatively late, in the 1870s. By that time it was considered already a part of the history of economics. However the debates between the different approaches in economics led to the confrontation of the corresponding versions of its history. Due to the rigorous style of Ricardo’s writings, their interpretation allowed less space for ideological or political connotations, comparing to the interpretations of Adam Smith or Karl Marx. Hence, the study of the different interpretations of Ricardian theory in the competing theoretical approaches allows to grasp the analytical difference between them.
The chapter is concentrated mainly on the history of pre-revolutionary Russian economics.
Smoking is a problem, bringing signifi cant social and economic costs to Russiansociety. However, ratifi cation of the World health organization Framework conventionon tobacco control makes it possible to improve Russian legislation accordingto the international standards. So, I describe some measures that should be taken bythe Russian authorities in the nearest future, and I examine their effi ciency. By studyingthe international evidence I analyze the impact of the smoke-free areas, advertisementand sponsorship bans, tax increases, etc. on the prevalence of smoking, cigaretteconsumption and some other indicators. I also investigate the obstacles confrontingthe Russian authorities when they introduce new policy measures and the public attitudetowards these measures. I conclude that there is a number of easy-to-implementanti-smoking activities that need no fi nancial resources but only a political will.
One of the most important indicators of company's success is the increase of its value. The article investigates traditional methods of company's value assessment and the evidence that the application of these methods is incorrect in the new stage of economy. So it is necessary to create a new method of valuation based on the new main sources of company's success that is its intellectual capital.