Zwischen Patriarchalismus und Liberalismus – Ökonomie und Politik bei Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, Steuart und Smith
The paper contextualises the philosophy of Adam Smith and analyses the pre-history of political economy as being in large parts determined by notions of patriarchalism, i. e. the notion that the role of a head of state is analogous to the head of a private household. It is shown how this notion migrates from political philosophy proper (Bodin, Hobbes) into mercantilist discourses and that it is a fundamental part of Locke's economic theory. Adam Smith denies the validity of this analogy: his cosmopolitanism, his views on the divison of labour, and his arguments against interventionism are all directed against patriarchalist misunderstandings of the relationship between the economy and the state.
State Capitalism could be characterized by a triple role of the state: the state performs as a “programmer” to guide economic activity; it acts as a “protector” to safeguard national economic interests; and it also plays the role as a “producer” to create national wealth through its state-owned enterprises (SOEs). However, the influences of State Capitalism in a country are not only limited to the domestic sphere. They often extend internationally, either through the globalization of SOEs, or through Sovereign Fund investments, or by means of other influences. Many recent acquisition projects by SOEs, often in strategic sectors, highlight the importance of understanding this new geopolitical investment which has created special relations between State Capitalism and the free market. They also raise the question of the need for updating national economic security concerns in the context of globalization. As the value of Sovereign Funds reaches several trillion dollars, the controversy surrounding these Funds is evolving. For many, these Funds do not necessarily always look for maximizing business performance, but are sometimes also accompanied by political and strategic ambitions of the respective states from where they originate. The phenomenon of State Capitalism has gained prominence in recent years especially in several emerging markets. It appeared, firstly, because of multiple government interventions in the economy,and secondly, emphasis given to the globalization of their SOEs / economic organizations in international markets (China, Russia, Brazil, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, India, Korea, etc.). In January 2012, The Economist published another special article on State Capitalism and wondered if the new balance of power that is being built-up with the emergence of market oriented SOEs will pose a challenge to the liberal capitalist model. The objectives of this conference are manifold: to examine the characteristics of State Capitalism in the world economy, especially in emerging countries, to assess its real impact on economic development, to identify its scope to other developing countries, and also to explore the major challenges that it poses to the liberal capitalist model in the world of free-markets.
Late in life, William F. Buckley made a confession to Corey Robin. Capitalism is "boring," said the founding father of the American right. "Devoting your life to it," as conservatives do, "is horrifying if only because it's so repetitious. It's like sex." With this unlikely conversation began Robin's decade-long foray into the conservative mind. What is conservatism, and what's truly at stake for its proponents? If capitalism bores them, what excites them? Tracing conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution, Robin argues that the right is fundamentally inspired by a hostility to emancipating the lower orders. Some conservatives endorse the free market, others oppose it. Some criticize the state, others celebrate it. Underlying these differences is the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality. Despite their opposition to these movements, conservatives favor a dynamic conception of politics and society--one that involves self-transformation, violence, and war. They are also highly adaptive to new challenges and circumstances. This partiality to violence and capacity for reinvention has been critical to their success. Written by a keen, highly regarded observer of the contemporary political scene, The Reactionary Mind ranges widely, from Edmund Burke to Antonin Scalia, from John C. Calhoun to Ayn Rand. It advances the notion that all rightwing ideologies, from the eighteenth century through today, are historical improvisations on a theme: the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.
This paper is divided into three parts: it first gives an historical analysis of the legal concept of 'no man's land' (in Latin: terra nullius) and its role in legal and theological controversies surrounding the colonisation of the Americas. It then goes on to show how these Hispanic debates form the basis for Locke's views in the matter. Finally, it addresses the question to which extent Locke's erroneous presumptions still shape contemporary legal discourse. To this end, the 1992 landmark decision of the Australian High Court in Mabo v Queensland is analysed in depth. Even though the court was right in rescinding the concept of terra nullius, the judges were insufficiently aware of its colonial roots.
The paper consists of three main sections. The first is devoted to a discussion of the "state capitalism" concept and the reasons for the growing interest to this phenomenon. It is proposed here to consider the state capitalism not only in terms of the state ownership in major national industrial enterprises and banks, but also taking into account the efficiency of SOEs. In the second section, the new data on the state involvement in the Russian economy are represented, including the shares of the state in the authorized capital of the largest industrial enterprises and banks. Their economic indicators are compared. Contrary to some assumptions P / E values for national champions are lagging behind the average for emerging markets. The third section examines the hypothesis that one of the major challenges faced by the state capitalism is the development of investment incentives for SOEs and their performance. It is shown that the interests of the state as an owner of business enterprises are often in conflict with the interests of the state as a social institution. A number of examples are demonstrated. In order to solve this problem the state should reduce its stakes in SOEs except for those that are of strategic importance. The output of the analysis is that the state capitalism as a social phenomenon has no a long-term perspective. Most of so called “state capitalist” countries will take in future the path of traditional mixed market economy.
In the Social Science, as different from the history of ideas, the steady preconception of viewing Hobbes as the philosopher who considered human to be a rational and selfish being exists. Such human beings in their natural condition set the war of all against all, but only the strong power can preserve them in the condition of peace. However true Hobbesian views as to the human relationships have almost nothing in common with these trivial suggestion. The article deals with some aspects of Hobbesian anthropology and his doctrine of the virtue. It is argued that the social order is represented by Hobbes as very agile and complex in its structure. At the first glance his philosophy could seem very legible and solely constructivist, designed as the triumph of coherence and implacable logic. At depth - it is not even contradictory, but the terrain of the questions without any answers.
Hobbesian philosophy holds the attention of the researches up to now. The most discussable questions are the following ones: 1. Whether the philosophy of Hobbes is to be considered in relation to his physics and metaphysics or it is an autonomous area of contemplation? 2. Is the philosophy of Hobbes immanently intelligible, as a system of interrelated suppositions or it is to be interpreted out of the historical context of his published works? 3. Is his bellum omnium contra omnes merely an intellectual construction or this notion can be referred to the historical and universal facts of social life design?