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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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.

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)

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 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)

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

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.

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)

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 an interview dealing with his latest book, The Alterglobalist strategy, Gustave Massiah answers a series of questions dealing with the crisis of neoliberal capitalism and with the specific agenda of alterglobalist strategies. The main topic of the interview is the relation between antineoliberal and anticapitalist struggles and the question of the possible and the desirable scenarios emerging from the crisis.

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)

Cette note entend faire une critique constructive de la thèse du « mode de production managérial », due à Gérard Duménil et Dominique Lévy. Tout en reconnaissant les mérites de leurs travaux, la note essaye de montrer qu’il existe une disproportion entre leur proposition théorique, de grande ampleur, et sa base empirique, trop faible pour la soutenir. Trois contre-arguments sont développés en ce sens. D’abord, les auteurs ne se fondent pratiquement que sur le constat de la montée de (...) la part des salaires dans les hauts revenus aux États-Unis, une évolution qui peut être remise en cause en catégorisant correctement les revenus des cadres dirigeants. Ensuite, ils négligent des données et des indicateurs alternatifs qui donnent des images fort différentes de l’évolution historique. Enfin, ils n’étudient pas l’évolution des formes organisationnelles qui sont au fondement des théories sur l’évolution de la structure de classe, qui relativisent l’importance de la bureaucratie. Deux contreexemples sont données à l’encontre de la thèse du managérialisme : les associés des fonds de capitalinvestissement constituent des nouveaux capitalistes financiers ; les dirigeants des plus grandes entreprises multinationales sont des dirigeants actionnaires. (shrink)

Leo Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich might well be read as a narrative outworking of Pascal's observation that "We run heedless into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop us seeing it."1 That Ivan Ilyich, an ambitious mid-level Russian legal official, plummets into the abyss is incontestable, for the novella opens by announcing his death. What is debated is how he does so: On his deathbed does he merely resign himself to nothingness, or does he (...) undergo some sort of religious conversion? Some scholars—call them "hermeneuts of denial"—find little or no religious significance in Ivan's death.2 If some allusions are religiously suggestive, they must be interpreted and discounted in view of... (shrink)

There is currently an unrecognised conflict between the utilitarian nature of the overall NHS and the basic deontology of the doctor-patient interaction. This conflict leads to mistrust and misunderstanding between managers and clinicians. This misunderstanding is bad for both doctors and managers, and also leads to waste of time and resources, and poorer services to patients. The utilitarian thinkers tend to value finite, short term, evidence based technical interventions, delivered according to specifications and contracts. They appear happy to break care (...) up into smaller pieces, which can then be commissioned from multiple providers. The deontological thinkers tend to think about care delivered through a long term continuous relationship, and regard that relationship as therapeutic and salutogenic in itself. To them breaking care up into smaller fragments is a denial of what caring is really about. Very rarely are either or both sides of this debate fully aware of where their powerfully felt and often well argued positions start from. In this paper we offer an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of both moral viewpoints as applied in the UK NHS context and we suggest a way in which they can be reconciled, provided neither is pushed too far or too hard against the other. We believe this reconciliation would be good for patients, doctors, managers and improve the service as a whole. (shrink)

It is now integral to much of cultural, political and social analysis. This is the first comprehensive survey in one volume of the interdisciplinary field of cosmopolitan studies.

This book will appeal to second- and third-year undergraduates, and graduates and academics in sociology and social theory, politics, cultural studies and other ...

The enlargement of the European Union to include eventually Turkey and the former communist countries is a major challenge for our understanding of the meaning of Europe as a geopolitical, social and cultural space. It is also a question of the identity of Europe as one shaped by social or systemic integration. With the diminishing significance of national borders within the EU, the outer territorial frontier is also losing its significance and Europe will become more and more postwestern. It thus (...) appears that the eastern frontier is more flexible than was previously thought. The EU is now at the decisive point of moving beyond postnationality to a transnational encounter with multiple civilizational forms. Enlargement is not just about getting bigger but is crucially a matter of cultural transformation and therefore it differs from all previous dynamics of Europeanization. Rather than tell the story of Europeanization exclusively as one of national histories and of closure, a civilizational analytic offers the possibility of multiple modernities and thus of a more appropriate theorization of the current situation. (shrink)

Computational dialectics is concerned with the formal representation of argument and dispute. The field emerged from developments in philosophy, artificial intelligence and legal theory. Its goal is to suggestalgorithms, procedures and protocols to investigate the tenability of logical claims, on the basis of information in the form of rules and cases. Currently, the field slowlyconverges to the opinion that dispute is the most fair and effective way to investigate claims. The basic assumption of this field is that dispute is the (...) most fair and effective way to investigate claims. The definition of a formal dispute varies throughout the literature, butis considered not to vary within one and the same logical system. In this paper it is shown that parts of the definition of a dispute may change within one logical system.To this end, the notion of partial protocol specification (PPS) is introduced. A PPS is a part of the definition of the protocol. A modification to the protocol, in the form of a PPS, can be put forward, disputed, established and incorporated as aneffective `point of order. The paper demonstrates the existence of self-undermining PPSs, it discusses the relevance of PPSs for dialectical models of legal argument and concludes with a description of how PPSs can be built into existing argumentation systems. (shrink)

Defeasible reasoning is concerned with the logics of non-deductive argument. As is described in the literature, the study of this type of reasoning is considerably more involved than the study of deductive argument, even so that, in realistic applications, there is often a lack of resources to perform an exhaustive analysis. It follows that, in a theory of defeasible reasoning, the order and direction in which arguments are developed, i.e. theprocedure, is important. The aim of this article is to show (...) that debate is the most efficient procedure to argue in the presence of limited resources. To do so, there is first some general theory on defeasible argumentation, which is followed by an introduction to the problem of dialectical search. The problem of dialectical search is (or at least, should be) the essential issue in every theory on argumentation, and emerges at every occasion that involves adjudication on competing arguments. Starting with an example, it is explained that dialectical search can be best scheduled according to classical debating techniques, that work along well-tried methods. These methods (which include various forms of curtailment, interruption, and interpretation) have proven their value in keeping debating efforts within reasonable bounds. How they apply in a theory of formal argument, will be shown in this article. (shrink)

Le mérite le plus patent de Zur Kritik der Gewalt de Benjamin consiste à défaire toute représentation innocente de la violence et de ses usages, toute compréhension de la violence qui n’y verrait que l’innocuité d’un moyen neutre légitimé, ou pas, par les fins qu’il vise, les intérêts qu’il sert ou les classes qui le mobilisent. « Dans cette perspective, la violence est un produit naturel, en quelque sorte un matériau brut dont l’utilisation ne pose aucun problème ». S’interroger sur (...) la viole... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Editor’s IntroductionGerard A. HauserThe call for papers for this special issue of Philosophy and Rhetoric1 acknowledged the continuous centrality of human agency across the history of Western thought on rhetoric. At its ancient Greek origins, the Sophists and philosophers were at swords points over the question of what constituted responsible speech and who had responsibility for the consequences of moving the demos to public actions that bore on the (...) city-state and the lives of its citizens. On the one hand, sophistic understood the human world as indeterminate, progressing or regressing through appeals that would establish social and political reality for the community through the power of language and argument to move the minds and hearts of citizens. Protagoras expressed this vision with his aphorism, "Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not." Central to their understanding of the human world was a recognition and exploration of language's psychogogic powers. For the philosophers, on the other hand, sophistic's position represented a problematic abandonment of the quest for Eternal Truth.The tension between the quest for contingent truth and Eternal Truth is illustrated by Xenophon's rendition of the aftermath of the Athenian naval victory at Arginoussai, in 406 BCE. In his Hellenika,2 he recounts how some of the victorious fleet's sailors became separated from it during the confusion of battle and were left behind. Although the commanders sent a group to rescue them, violent seas thwarted their efforts and the men drowned. Upon returning to Athens as victors, the commanders were arrested and charged with cowardice. The Ecclesia met to decide whether to bind them over for trial. The commanders seemed to have persuaded most of their innocence, but time ran out for that day's proceedings before a vote on whether to bind them over for a trial could be taken. That evening, at a festival in the city, opponents of the commanders attended dressed in [End Page 181] black mourning clothes and pretended to be grieving relatives of the lost sailors. Their displays of sorrow over the sailors' deaths were so convincing that they swung the emotions of many in the opposite direction.The next day, opponents of the commanders played upon the events of the night before and the citizens, remembering the displays of grief they had witnessed, were persuaded to try the commanders themselves, rather than deciding whether to bind them over to the courts for trial. Arguments went back and forth on how to interpret the tragic event—were the commanders brave but foiled by nature, or was their conduct spineless? Did they deserve a laurel wreath for their victory in battle, or to be executed for cowardice in allowing the stranded sailors to drown? Finally a vote was taken and, reversing their sentiment from the day before, the citizens voted to condemn the commanders. The military leaders were taken away to be executed. Soon thereafter, Xenophon tells us, the citizens had a change of heart and wished to reverse their verdict. However, since it was too late—the generals having already been put to death!—they lodged a complaint against those who had persuaded them to convict for "deceiving the People."The story may be read as a representative anecdote of rhetoric's fatal flaw or of rhetoric's constitutive powers of agency. On one reading, Athenian Ecclesiasts, convulsed with emotion, were stripped of their agency by arguments seeking the probable through sensory engagement structured by phantasia and mimesis3 while lacking a foundation in the Eternally True. However, it also may be read as disclosing the absence of Eternal Truth on which to ground a human world, and the agential power of language—of rhetoric—to constitute understanding and action.4 On one side, agency resided in the self-aware person who made responsible arguments with reference to pure reason and ideal justice. On the other, agency resided in the powers of language to engage thoughts and emotions, of discourse to circulate, and of representative thinking5 for discovering human reality. These latter were products of human... (shrink)