A Contemporary Marxist Critique of Neoliberal Capitalism: Beyond Revolution and Neo-Keynesianism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study is to assess current trends, regularities and contradictions in the Marxist critique of neoliberal capitalism. The methodology of the study is built on a comparative analysis of the latest scientific works, an approach based on quantitative analysis of the global neoliberal development in the period 1980–2020. For the analysis this authors used the data of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund(IMF) on the group of ‘Big Seven’ countries – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, the United States and China. A comparative analysis shows a significant lag in the countries with a neoliberal model of global economic growth. It can be argued that the neoliberal model of economic development proved effective at the initial stage of its practical application in overcoming the inflationary shock caused by the oil crisis of the 1970s, as well as in the conditions of highly competitive industrial production. At the same time, in the context of the post-industrial formation of the digital economy, neoliberal ideology no longer meets the challenges of the times and is no longer able to support sustainable economic growth as well as prosperity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".