Gods and Monsters: The Scientific Method Applied to the Human Condition - Book II

by Giano Rocca

  Chapter 23:

  Definition of the economy such as: the Study of structural reality historic and of its relationship with the material base of this reality (or structural economy)

  Economists define “economy” the study “scientific” of the processes of the material referent of reality structural statual of the mercanilet phase, study that is born in the XVII century (1), namely at the time, indicated by us, as of the transition to the capitalist system competitive (2). The economists “classics” (so defined, in that the economic study was born before in England, more advanced in the transition to the capitalist system competitive) have stated that the surplus created with the production is given by the difference between the value of production and the value of the goods and of the labor employed (3). This conception, because it ignores that the value of all goods is determined in the exchange, justifies and creates the preconditions of ideological conception of Marx.

  The economists “contemporaries” recognize as the entrepreneurs, with the recruitment of “labor”, they buy the their “production capacity” (4) and not the “force – work”, although, then, they speak of “working energy” (5). They affirm, then, that the coin has, in the productive process “capitalistic”, a different role from that of intermediate goods (or numerary), namely of simple measure of value, being, also, capital (6). Siro Lombardini stated that, priority task of the economist, both research of the consequences of the economic policy of the States, on economic dynamics. Another task, would be to provide certainties at the economic operators, through the forecast of the trend economic (7) (task, not randomly, totally disregarded, up to now). Lombardini stated that the theories of the marginality, at the purpose, of course, of avoid the ideological positions, propose systematic theories, that they are based on a few principles and few concepts (8). Occur, thus, for example, the consideration of economic processes as results of the choices of the operators among the various alternatives in field. The principle, place by the “theoretical of the marginality” at the basis of economic activity, is the search for the maximum satisfaction of the needs of the individual economic operators. They indicate the term “marginal utility” the degree of satisfaction that the consumer obtains from a unitary increment additional of a certain well (9). The “theoretical of the marginality “ say that: distribution of income, is a problem political-social. They had recognized that: income distribution, is a problem political and social (10). The “of the marginality theory” recognizes as not only there exists the market of free competition, but takes into account situations alternatives of market. However, it does not distinguish enough between natural needs and structural needs, namely, modified by structural reality in evolution. According to the “theoretical of the marginality”, the purpose of the economy is the study of the behavior, defined “rational”, in coordination with the Sociology (11). This would allow the formulation of “scientific laws”, from verify statistically, defined “econometrics” (12). Some “theoretical of the marginality” make a clear distinction between the moment descriptive, and regulatory moment, of the economic analysis, where the second is connected with the analysis of economic policy choices, while the descriptive moment is connected with the analysis of the elements of the material referent: the latter is the specific object of the economy. Lombardini recognized an analytical validity to this distinction (13). Economists, instead of considering the economic aspect of the goods used in production, as a productive factor, they take into account, especially, the aspect technical-technological, denying to themselves, thus, the possibility of understand the essence of the relations of production. They define, then, “technology”, the productive activity itself, also called “organic implementation of techniques” (14). In addition to “science” economic, economists define “the Economy” also the “economic system” (15). This is especially true for the Italian, since in English there are two separate terms, for the two different objects. Lombardini showed how economists define “market” “the search of the equilibrium of the potential demands of a given good... to the potential offer of the same good” (16). They, therefore, define as “market”, also, the exchange peculiar of feudal phases, not realizing the differences between the two different relationships of exchange. Economists, as Lombardini, speak of “World economy”, intending to, practically, the existence of a single system, but the concept of the world market is foreign to them, as it is that of the universality of the structural reality statual and of the structural evolution, in general. This is demonstrated by the recent “fashion” of speak of “globalization”, as of a fact emerged very recently and such as to averted or invoked and favored.

  Lombardini had defined “system”: the organization that determines the possible ways to operate of the economic subjects (17). For the “physiocrats” the “economic system” was the material referent, that is focused, for them, especially on agriculture. For the economists, in general, the “economic system” is the object of their study, understood in a static way and almost unchangeable. The “physiocrats”, as well as, also, the “classics” (with the exception of Marx), they have considered essential, for the “economic system” the balance between “quantity asked and quantities offered” (18), equilibrium that in phases mercantile is realized through the market, of which the “classics”, in particular, have totally ignored the balancers capacity, stating, even, that even the equilibrium occurs in the production.

  Jean-Baptiste Say stated that the expansion of production, automatically, create the adequate incomes to create demand required to absorb all products (19). Thomas Robert Malthus and John Maynard Keynes have affirmed that this theory was not correct or incomplete, because they have noted, or they have predicted (Malthus), the economic crisis arising from consumption. But, they, do not had spotted the causes of these crises by consumption, and not distinguish these, from crisis from production, equally numerous, and that constituting together, a cyclicity of twenty years. The contemporary economists define “macroeconomic balance” that which occur between the supply potential and actual demand (20). The “marginalist theory” recognizes as, with the market, is realized, in the equilibrium achieved on the market itself, for each individual, the maximum utility possible, given the utility reached by the others (21). The vagueness of this proposition allows its becoming true regardless by the forcings and limitations suffered from the market, for how deep they are. Only recently, some economists, recognize the alternation of crisis from the side of the production to the crisis by the side of the consumptions (22).

  The “science” economic, in the presence of the structural reality, must analyze an economic reality not balanced, but distorted by the irrationality inherent in reality historical structural, that determines some elements against the inexpensiveness, if not even, a reality in total contrast to the economy. An analysis really scientific of such irrationalities, and of the causes of the such reality contrary to the inexpensiveness, take away legitimacy at the same structural reality and, therefore, for be able to assert itself as science really such, must exist a clear prospect of overcoming the structural reality historical. Science has triumphed, up to now, only in the field of the sciences materials, namely of the inorganic nature and of the organic nature, noting the substantial rationality of the cosmic nature. When the science has dealt the social realities, namely of reality structural organic-stratified, has not been able to achieve the status of scientific theory, because it has applied to this fact, in itself, irrationals, rationalistic conceptions. Is derived, from this, a irrational knowledge, in that inconsistent with the nature of own object. This knowledge irrational, ends to justify the existence of structural reality, since considered the fruit of the human irrationality, that would be consequent to the supposed contradiction between the needs: individual and social, of the individuals.

  The study of structural reality, in the its material base, when it is free by the conditioning determinant of structural reality in act or in evolution, which does n
ot tend to promote, a date, phase statual rather to promote the other, but it try to get to the knowledge of the statual reality as a whole and in its relationship with the human reality and can be defined, with good reason, scientific study of the structural economy.