kinds of Capitalism

Rabu, 09 Desember 2009

Neo-Capitalism


Neo-Capitalism, literally means "New Capitalism". This economic theory fuses some elements of capitalism with some elements of socialism, mixing elements of each.[1] The new capitalism was new compared to the capitalism in the era before World War II.[citation needed]
The term neo-capitalism was first used in the late 1950s and early 1960s by French and Belgian left-wing writers, including Andre Gorz and Leo Michielsen. It was popularized in English by the Marxist Ernest Mandel in works such as An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory.[2]
In the 1970s, sociologist Michael Miller started using "neo-Capitalism" to refer to the Continental European blend of expansive private enterprise, extensive social-welfare programs and selective government intervention whereby organised labour works in partnership with government and private industry to negotiate and implement general wage levels and government spending across the economy in return for avoiding strikes and labour unrest.[3]


Late capitalism


"Late capitalism" is a term sometimes used to refer to capitalism from about 1950 onwards, generally with the implication that it is historically limited, and will eventually end.
This idea has its origin in Karl Marx's judgment that the capitalist mode of production, like any other mode of production, is in the broad sweep of history a limited and transient phenomenon, rather than being the natural, ever-lasting condition for human life. Thus, it can be periodized in terms of its historical emergence, its heyday, and its subsequent phase of decline and disappearance.
However, the notion of late capitalism is partly an ideological perspective based upon a judgement about the future. This is because there is no way of telling exactly when capitalism will end, or if it will simply keep evolving instead. In addition, the global pattern of capitalist development has been extremely uneven; some regions have barely reached the stage of "early capitalism".
In general, Marx seems to have believed—as a generalization—that no mode of production disappears until it has developed all the productive forces which it can contain within its social relations of production. Technologies would ultimately become incompatible with the existing social framework, causing that social framework to break down, and a new social framework to emerge. According to Rosa Luxemburg, that could mean an advance to socialism or a relapse into barbarism.
Capitalism has proved to be a flexible and adaptive system, able to survive terrible catastrophes including two world wars and an enormous number of smaller wars - suggesting, for many thinkers, that the end is not yet near. Lenin opined that there were no absolutely hopeless situations for capitalism; its fate depended on the outcome of class struggle. This, however, does not deter critics of the system, who point to various alleged signs of the system's social decay on a world scale.
But there are also others, like Murray Bookchin, who argue that capitalism has already been superseded; in a modern information society the old industrial system is a thing of the past, and the reference to capitalism is an anachronism (although Marx never defined capitalism as being purely industrial).
Similarly, Immanuel Wallerstein believes that capitalism is in the process of being replaced by another world system in several of his works and lectures on world-systems theory. Wallerstein places the time at which this process began as somewhere around 1968, during the so-called revolutions of 1968 and as the hegemony of the United States began to move into a period of decline. Wallerstein does not state what sort of system the world is theorized to be transitioning to, indeed he believes it is impossible to know until the transition has already been made.

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar