Dear Davide, Leonardo here. Thank you so much for highlighting the paper! And with elegance and very smart connections. I think this is a road not explored in Schumpeter’s thinking, and it helped me to make sense of the dynamics of Chinese socialism. Currently working on expanding this on a book provisionally titled “ The political economy of creative destruction “. Best. L
Thank you for the kind words! I found your paper to be very insightful, in particular for the way that it develops on the 'economic' function of the state. Excited to read more of your work in the future, and I will be building on these ideas if I do a PhD.
Another fine piece Davide. The question of political economy and of Western nation’s commitment to the state/market dichotomy is such a core issue for the development of alternative viewpoints/approaches to development and governance today. As you mentioned the default retort of “china is totalitarian” is reductionistic and does not serve honest comparative analysis which could provide for a fruitful base of research and policy making. Looking forward to future publications!
I enjoyed the reflections related to Burlamaqui's article. It makes me think about varieties of the capitalist state, e.g. how the U.S. state also blur the lines between public and private through mechanisms like public-private partnerships, government-backed R&D, revolving doors, financial bailouts, etc. Not to force a comparison, but I also wonder how you would view asset managers like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street through the lens of increasing socialization? I haven't read the Stephen Maher book, but will check it out.
Thanks Justin. In terms of the public private divide, it's complex in the sense that there isn't really a defined relation between the public and private in terms of economic policy. I would contend the point is that the arbitrary boundaries are being overcome in part due to the necessary developments taking place within capitalism.
It's funny you say that about the B3, because Maher just released a book with his co-author Scott Aquanno last year on the big three asset mamangers. I won't go into detail, but they view them accelerators of the centralization of financial assets. There newest book is worth reading, as it integrates a theorization of the state with a study of the B3.
I think that's a bit iffy definition of socialism. The capitalist mode of production depends on the commodity form, not just on ownership of the means of production that, as you pointed out, are being socialized through modern companies
I totally agree, as I alluded to but didn’t want to get into I don’t think this is a proper definition of socialism for various reasons. But he is actually getting it what socialism is as tendency in capitalism which is the production becomes further socialized. He doesn’t go far enough but it’s really worth reading because he’s one of the few people who discusses these tendencies in a serious way.
Dear Davide, Leonardo here. Thank you so much for highlighting the paper! And with elegance and very smart connections. I think this is a road not explored in Schumpeter’s thinking, and it helped me to make sense of the dynamics of Chinese socialism. Currently working on expanding this on a book provisionally titled “ The political economy of creative destruction “. Best. L
Thank you for the kind words! I found your paper to be very insightful, in particular for the way that it develops on the 'economic' function of the state. Excited to read more of your work in the future, and I will be building on these ideas if I do a PhD.
Another fine piece Davide. The question of political economy and of Western nation’s commitment to the state/market dichotomy is such a core issue for the development of alternative viewpoints/approaches to development and governance today. As you mentioned the default retort of “china is totalitarian” is reductionistic and does not serve honest comparative analysis which could provide for a fruitful base of research and policy making. Looking forward to future publications!
Thank you Sam! The discussion of the public private divide is really key here, its the core of almost everything.
I enjoyed the reflections related to Burlamaqui's article. It makes me think about varieties of the capitalist state, e.g. how the U.S. state also blur the lines between public and private through mechanisms like public-private partnerships, government-backed R&D, revolving doors, financial bailouts, etc. Not to force a comparison, but I also wonder how you would view asset managers like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street through the lens of increasing socialization? I haven't read the Stephen Maher book, but will check it out.
Thanks Justin. In terms of the public private divide, it's complex in the sense that there isn't really a defined relation between the public and private in terms of economic policy. I would contend the point is that the arbitrary boundaries are being overcome in part due to the necessary developments taking place within capitalism.
It's funny you say that about the B3, because Maher just released a book with his co-author Scott Aquanno last year on the big three asset mamangers. I won't go into detail, but they view them accelerators of the centralization of financial assets. There newest book is worth reading, as it integrates a theorization of the state with a study of the B3.
I have been sharing so much of your research to my professor these past years! So excited to read.
That's great to hear! hope you enjoy the work
I think that's a bit iffy definition of socialism. The capitalist mode of production depends on the commodity form, not just on ownership of the means of production that, as you pointed out, are being socialized through modern companies
I totally agree, as I alluded to but didn’t want to get into I don’t think this is a proper definition of socialism for various reasons. But he is actually getting it what socialism is as tendency in capitalism which is the production becomes further socialized. He doesn’t go far enough but it’s really worth reading because he’s one of the few people who discusses these tendencies in a serious way.
This vaguely reminds me of communization theory. While I know little about it, I think it'd make an interesting post in that regard