Search results

Marx's formulation of the alienation problematic is grounded in a strategic set of underlying assumptions concerning the human condition. On the one hand, people are seen as the creators of their material and mental world through their labour activity. They are endowed with natural human qualities, creative powers and historically existing potentialities that are essential to human growth. People are, in essence, free, creative, productive beings of praxis in conscious control of their activities and the world they have created. But the material and mental products of human labour (e.g. commodities, ideas, social institutions) assume an autonomous life of their own. They come to rule over people as dehumanizing objects and powers, as alien and hostile forces operating independently above and against the common will of their own creators. People no longer experience themselves as active human agents in conscious control of their life circumstances. Their own productive activities, human creations, social relationships and nature at large remain alien and beyond their grasp. The realization of natural human capacities and potentialities for a genuinely human life in an alienating world of domination and oppression is consequently thwarted, repressed or denied. Alienation is construed as a universal social phenomenon that pervades all spheres of human life in the existing world.

This paper expounds three theoretical contributions of Das Kapital from a new perspective.

First, Karl Marx’s scientific labor theory of value encompasses both abstract and concrete forms; second, the dialectics in Das Kapital serves not only as a methodology but as a theory, and the third is the organic structure of Das Kapital, hailed as “a triumph of German science”.

The organic structure of Marx’s Das Kapital is not only a remarkable achievement of German science but also a brilliant accomplishment of human science that is hard for future generations to surpass. It serves as an exemplar and illuminates the path and objectives for constructing a scientific system of political economy with Chinese characteristics.

These three theoretical contributions have practical guiding significance in the research on the socialist market economy and the construction of the socialist political economy system with Chinese characteristics.

To cope successfully with the pressures imposed by a devastating pandemic and other challenges, companies and policymakers need to look at how they conceptualize, define, measure and operationalize “value”. This paper aims to support this conversation.

This study presents a historical review of how the value construct has been conceptualized over time, demonstrating that its history is one of tension and debate with conceptualizations swinging between objective (i.e. the value of something exists independent of the observers) and subjective (i.e. the value of something depends on the personal response of the observer to what is being considered) views over time.

This paper outlines the implications to researchers of value’s low construct clarity, offering suggestions designed to exploit rather than ignore the duality of the value construct. Instead of thinking of the value construct as being subjective or objective, this study recommends that scholars consider value’s objectivity and subjectivity as being interrelated and complementary. The paper recommends that researchers use both quantitative and qualitative methodologies in studying this construct.

A major limitation of this paper is the word count limitation restricting the extent to which this paper could explore a more comprehensive list of the conceptualizations of value throughout history.

This paper presents practitioners with a nuanced understanding of value that should assist those interested in examining the worth of investments with observable expenses but less quantifiable outputs.

The authors have not found a similar analysis of the various conceptualizations of value.

Introduction Economics has been defined and re‐defined several times in the past, and even within the dominant scientific orientation of the discipline, there are currently a number of alternative definitions. One of the definitions, which has been gaining increasing popularity in recent years is “economics as the science of choices.” This definition focuses on the fundamental objective of the discipline as currently formulated, namely, the optimum allocation of resources through appropriate choices, or in other words, the development of economic engineering based on science. We will use the concept of choices as the convenient point of entry into the exploration of the nature of economic reality, or its ontology.

In a recent essay entitled “Value‐relevant Sociology”, David Gray (1983:405–416) argues that if sociology has to be socially relevant, “it is essential that sociology becomes consciously value‐relevant, not value‐free.” He maintains that sociologists cannot analyse the consequences of social structure, forces, and change in a value‐free context if their works are to be relevant for social policies. He then goes on to say, “Between the extremes of value‐free, non‐relevant, sometimes trivial, sociology on the one hand, and immediate response to pressing socioeconomic problems and prevailing political winds on the other, where does the significant sociology lie?” (1983:406). For Gray, both extremes are inappropriate for a worthy academic discipline.