IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bistud/v10y2015i1p115-140n8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which Capital, Which Marx? Basic Income between Mainstream Economics, Critical Theory, and the Logic of Capital

Author

Listed:
  • Dahms Harry F.

    () (Department of Sociology,University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA)

Abstract

Piketty (2014) combines neoclassical economic theory and Keynesianism with an appreciation of how economic patterns and processes are tied to concrete socio-historical circumstances, and exemplifies how economists should compute in their models the socio-cultural costs accompanying economic growth and development. Piketty’s concern with trends in economic inequality, returns from capital, and economic growth, addresses issues is also consistent with Marx’s critique of political economy. While Piketty deems Marx’s theory overly simplistic, Piketty’s contention that modern democratic nation-states should confront the problem of increasing economic inequality exaggerates governments’ ability to regulate the economy today. Basic income is indicative both of the diminished capacity of states to promote social welfare via established policy strategies, and the heightened need to scrutinize the specific logic of capital in the twenty-first century. Recent reinterpretations of Marx affirm the need to resist orthodox, dogmatic and non-critical readings of his analysis of the inner workings of capitalism, and are consonant with the idea of basic income.

Suggested Citation

  • Dahms Harry F., 2015. "Which Capital, Which Marx? Basic Income between Mainstream Economics, Critical Theory, and the Logic of Capital," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 115-140, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bistud:v:10:y:2015:i:1:p:115-140:n:8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bis.2015.10.issue-1/bis-2015-0016/bis-2015-0016.xml?format=INT
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marion Fourcade & Etienne Ollion & Yann Algan, 2015. "The Superiority of Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, pages 89-114.
    2. M. Fourcade & E. Ollion & Y. Algan., 2015. "The Superiority of Economists," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 7.
    3. Michael J. Handel & Maury Gittleman, 1999. "Is There a Wage Payoff to Innovative Work Practices?," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_288, Levy Economics Institute.
    4. Marion Fourcade & Etienne Ollion & Yann Algan, 2015. "La superioridad de los economistas," Revista de Economía Institucional, Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía, vol. 17(33), pages 13-43, July-Dece.
    5. Shionoya,Yuichi, 1997. "Schumpeter and the Idea of Social Science," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521430340, December.
    6. Michael Howard, 2005. "Basic income, liberal neutrality, socialism, and work," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 613-631.
    7. Karl Widerquist, 1999. "New Perspectives on the Guaranteed Income," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_289, Levy Economics Institute.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bistud:v:10:y:2015:i:1:p:115-140:n:8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.