Marx, Kantorovich, and Novozhilov: What Is Wrong With Stoimost’?
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The program adopted at the 22nd Party Congress in October 1961 stated that prices must reflect socially necessary labor costs. Soviet economics held that it is these costs that form value. Meanwhile, Robert Campbell published an article under the title “Marx, Kantorovich, Novozhilov: Stoimost’ Versus Reality” supporting the view that Kantorovich and Novozhilov had revived Soviet economics. However, they had to reject the Marxist theory of value. In the opinion of many Soviet scholars, these economists withdrew from Marxism, which was not a positive contribution to economics. This article analyzes problems concerned with the content of the theory of value, whether it was adequately understood by Soviet economists and whether Kantorovich’s and Novozhilov’s approaches were compatible with Marxism. In fact, they developed interesting concepts of objectively determined valuations and differential costs. These indicators were to be used in the process of setting prices. Both Kantorovich and Novozhilov sincerely believed that their approaches were in line with Marxism. In his works, Novozhilov criticized Campbell’s article. This article attempts to prove that Marx did not complete the theory of value and, in fact, came to a dead end. With this in view, it would be incorrect to blame scholars for withdrawing from such an incomplete theory. The article studies the questions of correlation between Kantorovich’s and Novozhilov’s approaches and of their mutual estimation of each other’s thinking. In addition, the article demonstrates differences and similarities in the concepts of these outstanding economists. Although in correspondence with Canadian historian Vsevolod Holubnychy, Novozhilov tried to prove that his theory of differential costs was developed independently of Kantorovich’s works, this statement seems to be incorrect. The article also marks the influence of Kantorovich’s and Novozhilov’s ideas on the development of the concept of economic reform. The Appendix includes fragments from correspondence between Novozhilov and Holubnychy and excerpts from Campbell’s letter addressed to the author of this article. These excerpts contain quite a just rejoinder to critical remarks by Novozhilov concerning Campbell’s article.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle