Market Elimination in Modern Capitalism: Where the Theorists were Right
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous chapters, we have shown how Marx, his followers, and subsequently economists and social theorists of other schools all predicted the decline of the market, and most did so from a broadly historical materialist perspective. They identified fundamental changes in the forces of production that would tend to eradicate market relations, including new technologies generating huge economies of scale and scope and the growing use of science — considered to be a public good that could not be easily or efficiently privately appropriated — as the basis of modern industry. At the level of the productive relations, they expected the market-dependent petite bourgeoisie to be replaced by a new professionalised middle class indifferent or actively hostile to the market, while the economic role of the state would grow for a variety of reasons and contribute to the increasing socialisation of production and consumption within the capitalist mode of production itself. This would be accompanied by changes to the superstructure, with legal doctrines, political institutions and ideology all adjusting to the basic transformation of society that was under way. In this chapter, we show how these expectations could be justified for much of the twentieth century, but were then obviously and comprehensively falsified by profound changes in the opposite direction. These changes were in accord with, and are best understood in terms of, the concepts and propositions of historical materialism, which we outlined in Chapters 1 and 2. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".