Marx, Kantorovich, and Novozhilov: What Is Wrong With Stoimost’?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it