IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ura/ecregj/v1y2018i3p740-757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences of Opinion between K. Marx and A. I. Herzen over the Prospects of Economic Development of Russia: Significance for the Present Time

Author

Listed:
  • Vladimir Bochko

    (Institute of economics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

The article analyses the differences in views between K. Marx and A.I. Herzen on the prospects of economic development of Russia in the second half of the 19th century. The paper shows that K. Marx proved his views relying on the development of the industry, which had created conditions for the extension of the individualistic capitalist relations as well as for the appearance of the proletariat. A. I. Herzen paid more attention to the community relations, which gave to the Russian capitalism national specificity. A considerable part of the differences between the views of K. Marx and A. I. Herzen on the prospects of economic development of Russia is connected with their attitude towards the Russian rural community. Therefore, the article reveals their understanding of this phenomenon. K. Marx understood the community in connection with land ownership. However, A. I. Herzen attributed different social aspects to the community, as well as discussed communal self-government. For the first time, I define their mental perception of the opportunities of social transformations in Russia as one of the main differences in views between K. Marx and A.I. Herzen. K. Marx was shaped by the values of industrial and urban society. Therefore, he looked at the prospects of economic development of Russia through the materialistic understanding of history, and considered the proletariat as the driving force of transformations. A. I. Herzen’s way of thinking developed under the influence of the Russian mentality. As an artist and writer, he adhered to a figurative and intuitive, emotional type of thinking, which is closer to the rural life. He supported the change of a social regime, but considered that one should not destroy all the previous orders simply because they were old. He thought that it was necessary to understand the features of national mentality, and that the Russian collectivism was suitable for socialism more than the Western European individualism. I have proved that the differences of opinion between these two scientists are directly relevant to a challenge of choosing the road for the development of Russia in the 21st century. The collectivistic origins are to be considered, as well as the ideas of a social imprinting when forming the modern Russian capitalism. I have concluded that there were no serious differences in opinion between K. Marx and A. I. Herzen on the prospects of economic development of Russia in 19th century. There were certain divergences in views on understanding the Russian society. These divergences allow to see the beginning of essentially new approaches to the socio-economic development of modern Russia.

Suggested Citation

  • Vladimir Bochko, 2018. "Differences of Opinion between K. Marx and A. I. Herzen over the Prospects of Economic Development of Russia: Significance for the Present Time," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(3), pages 740-757.
  • Handle: RePEc:ura:ecregj:v:1:y:2018:i:3:p:740-757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://economyofregion.ru/Data/Issues/ER2018/September_2018/ERSeptember2018_740_757.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George A. Akerlof & Robert J. Shiller, 2010. "Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9163.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuliya G. Myslyakova, 2022. "Strategic Individualization of Scientific and Technical Development of the Economy of Industrial Regions of Russia Taking into Account their Hereditary Determinants," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 21(4), pages 685-707.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Di Bella, Gabriel & Grigoli, Francesco, 2019. "Optimism, pessimism, and short-term fluctuations," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 79-96.
    2. Elisa Darriet & Marianne Guille & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2021. "Financial Literacy and Numeracy," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 21031, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    3. Liu, Siqi & Yin, Chao & Zeng, Yeqin, 2021. "Abnormal investment and firm performance," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Gric, Zuzana & Ehrenbergerova, Dominika & Hodula, Martin, 2022. "The power of sentiment: Irrational beliefs of households and consumer loan dynamics," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    5. Lenka Mynaříková & Vít Pošta, 2023. "The Effect of Consumer Confidence and Subjective Well-being on Consumers’ Spending Behavior," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 429-453, February.
    6. Kevin D. Hoover, 2014. "Man and machine in macroeconomics," Cahiers d’économie politique / Papers in Political Economy, L'Harmattan, issue 67, pages 15-34.
    7. Jesper Akesson & Sam Ashworth-Hayes & Robert Hahn & Robert Metcalfe & Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Fatalism, beliefs, and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 147-190, April.
    8. Botor, Benjamin & Böcker, Benjamin & Kallabis, Thomas & Weber, Christoph, 2021. "Information shocks and profitability risks for power plant investments – impacts of policy instruments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    9. Felix Chopra & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Home Price Expectations and Spending: Evidence from a Field Experiment," CEBI working paper series 23-03, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    10. Òscar Jordà & Moritz Schularick & Alan M. Taylor & Felix Ward, 2019. "Global Financial Cycles and Risk Premiums," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 67(1), pages 109-150, March.
    11. Solomon Sorin & Golo Natasa, 2013. "Minsky Financial Instability, Interscale Feedback, Percolation and Marshall–Walras Disequilibrium," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 167-260, October.
    12. Darriet, Elisa & Guille, Marianne & Vergnaud, Jean-Christophe & Shimizu, Mariko, 2020. "Money illusion, financial literacy and numeracy: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    13. Gric, Zuzana & Bajzík, Josef & Badura, Ondřej, 2023. "Does sentiment affect stock returns? A meta-analysis across survey-based measures," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    14. Giamattei, Marcus & Lambsdorff, Johann Graf, 2019. "classEx — an online tool for lab-in-the-field experiments with smartphones," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 223-231.
    15. Becchetti, Leonardo & Fiaschetti, Maurizio & Marini, Giancarlo, 2012. "Card Games and Financial Crises," AICCON Working Papers 115-2012, Associazione Italiana per la Cultura della Cooperazione e del Non Profit.
    16. Laura Nowzohour & Livio Stracca, 2020. "More Than A Feeling: Confidence, Uncertainty, And Macroeconomic Fluctuations," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 691-726, September.
    17. Alla Koblyakova & Larisa Fleishman & Orly Furman, 2022. "Accuracy of Households’ Dwelling Valuations, Housing Demand and Mortgage Decisions: Israeli Case," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 48-74, July.
    18. Eisenbach, Thomas M. & Schmalz, Martin C., 2016. "Anxiety in the face of risk," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 414-426.
    19. Fang Zhang, 2017. "Confidence and the transmission of macroeconomic uncertainty in U.S. recessions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(29), pages 2893-2909, June.
    20. Gehring, Kai, 2013. "Who Benefits from Economic Freedom? Unraveling the Effect of Economic Freedom on Subjective Well-Being," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 74-90.

    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:ura:ecregj:v:1:y:2018:i:3:p:740-757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alexey Naydenov (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.economyofregion.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.