By MARLON DE SOUZA*
Marxist economics offers the strongest intellectual threat to economics mainstream, as well as the most potent theoretical framework for opposition to capitalism
This article argues about the failed agenda of the neoliberal school of thought and the practical inefficiency of neoclassical economic theory, while at the same time describing the discursive power of neoclassicism. Assuming that there is a conceptual deficit about the accuracy of the definition of what neoclassical economic theory is, the intention here is to contribute to the identification of corpus neoclassical economics theorist that composes neoliberal thought characterized by free market, accumulation by dispossession, privatizations, reduction of the State's participation in the direction of the Economy, reduction of public expenses, fiscal asphyxiation, monetary, exchange and interest policy.
In the development of this work it is highlighted that the economy mainstream, although it presents itself as an heir to the ideals of the liberal social sciences and, therefore, as a pluralist, in its praxis mobilizes discursive expedients to obstruct any alternative presentation or opposition to its equations and methodological models, which makes the mainstream imputable as a pluralist.
Bianchi (1992, p.139) when presenting the meaning of pluralism makes a brief digression of this conception in Social Sciences, Philosophy, Legal Sciences, International Relations, Political Sciences and defined that “in general, the idea of pluralism it emphasizes the moral morality of the autonomy and multiplicity of social groups, that is, the merits of a dynamic and diversified society”. According to Bianchi (ibdem) when a pluralist economic school is conceptualized it must be apprehended, by its very nature, averse to totalitarianism, to the dogmatism of single models and contrary to monism.
In this sense, this study is part of the pluralist school because, in addition to criticizing neoliberalism, this ongoing scientific development highlights Marxist economics as a theoretical force capable of being put into practice and of building an alternative to overcome the contradictions and limitations of the exploitative mode of production. capitalist. This article provides the foundation of Marx's systemic critique of economics mainstream, that is, to capitalism, for this reason per se The article is part of the pluralist school of thought.
This article is not included in the Pluralist School due to the method of analysis used here, but because it is a research that applies the classical Marxist method, dialectical materialism and the categories of analysis concentrated in the Theory of Value and the Theory of Value as a method of theoretical proposition. Class struggle. Therefore, by this constitution, this article is engendered in the Pluralist School because it provides a development in the Marxist theoretical plane that is absolutely different from economics mainstream and in the purely practical field, it presents guidelines for general application and for replacing any conception of the economy mainstream relating the Law of Value to the production goods manufactured in private and state companies, in the rational formation of commodity prices and in the economy of social work.
Fine and Saad-Filho (2018) point out that “in the current era of neoliberalism, the mainstream (orthodox or neoclassical) economics has tightened its grip on the discipline, dismissing heterodoxy in general and MS in particular as failing tests of logic, mathematics, and/or statistical rigor. For these authors, if the approaches, concepts and conclusions of EM seem strange, it is because they have been marginalized in most academic institutions of economics – especially in private educational institutions – and in the media, to the extent that most departments economics and the press completely bypass MS and its potential contribution to an understanding of contemporary society.
According to Bianchi (1992, p.136) John Neville Kaynes had already advocated in an essay for “economists to respect diversity and give up an infallible method”. The present work is inscribed in the thesis of the pluralist methodology defended by Bruce J. Cadwell in his Beyond Positivism (1982). The general tone of N. Keynes's essay is at the end of the first chapter in the sense that no method is defended to the detriment of all others. Bianchi (1992, p.138) points out to Caldwell that “the goals of methodological study do not consist in finding a mandatory and infallible method”.
Caldwell (1985) is clearly against monism, with its “unsustainable” adherence to a set of standards. Still according to Bianchi (1992, p.140) defining the methodology for the development of economic theory “is the choice of evaluation instruments depends on the nature of the problems focused by the scientist”. In this perspective, this article applies a plural analysis methodology because it is a marginal theory in the mainstream regarding “to allow the development of new theories, able to offer alternatives to the theory mainstream and compete with it on an equal footing” (ibdem). For this reason, this article mobilizes MS to criticize neoliberal economics and thus contribute with indicators for a different economy.
O mainstream it's neoliberal
The shortcomings of the current mainstream of the economy, the recurrent and persistent geopolitical catastrophes provoked by capitalism, the commitment to the market without questioning whether the system of exploitation and the class relations it represents continues to be appropriate fuel the search for alternatives among economists.
Capitalism's extraordinary capacity to develop the productive forces is simultaneously limited and misguided by its commitment to private profit as opposed to collective forms of ownership, control, distribution and consumption. The consequences are evident in the dysfunctions and injustices of contemporary life. (FINE and SAAD-FILHO, 2018, p.20)
Fine and Saad-Filho (2018) identify neoclassical and orthodox economic theory as the thinking mainstream. Arnsperger and Varoufakis (2008) point out that there is a complexity in defining contemporary neoclassical theory because “there is an endless list of models mainstream that distance themselves from each other and from some, if not all, of the previous ones”.
According to Arnsperger and Varoufakis (2008) the current mainstream replaced neoclassicism or the definition of neoclassicism needs to be rethought and abstracted from a list of neoclassical practices.
However, Arnsperger and Varoufakis (2008) identify the core of neoclassical economic theory and similarities between the old neoclassical theory and the contemporary one. Arnsperger and Varoufakis describe that neoclassical economics is conceptualized by methodological individualism. Critics of neoclassical economics often identify neoclassic economics as models in which all agents are perfectly informed, fully instrumentally rational, and absolutely selfish.
Arnsperger and Varoufakis consider that defining neoclassicism in this way was perhaps adequate in the 1950s, but today it leaves almost all modern neoclassical theory outside the definition. Arnsperger and Varoufakis state that although in fact in the last 40 years the neoclassical theory was marked by the emergence of innumerable models, the homo economicus it has evolved to look more and more like each of us – ill-informed economic actors with rational, almost irrational, limitations.
Arnsperger and Varoufakis are adamant that none of the theoretical advances of neoclassicism dislodged contemporary Neoclassical Economic Theory from its “methodological anchorage, it maintains its roots firmly within individualist liberal social science”.
This means that for the (neoliberal) economist, economic agents must be studied independently of the social set that their actions help to carry out. The study of economic actions could be conceived absolutely focusing on two dimensions; consumption and the product, completely ignoring another part of real human life such as ethical, cultural and political aspects.
Strictly speaking, it is as if neoliberal economists acted like a watchmaker who, when confronted with a strange clock, studies its function, concentrating on understanding, initially, the function of each of its gears and cogs, independently of the set of others. parts that are interrelated to make the clock turn.
Fine and Saad-Filho (2018) describe in the same direction, that the neoclassical method is simultaneously ahistorical and asocial, the most obvious due to the functions of production and utility that have little or no relationship with the society to which they are applied.
Aiming to overcome a theoretical deficit on the conceptualization of contemporary neoclassical economic theory and for a toxonomic description Arnsperger and Varoufakis (2008) point out three characteristics of neoclassicism; Methodological Individualism, Methodological Instrumentalism and Methodological Equilibrium.
1) Methodological individualism is that the corpus of the theory we think of as neoclassical is that of its methodological individualism: the idea that socio-economic explanation must be sought at the level of the individual agent.
2) Methodological instrumentalism of neoclassical economics is that all behavior is preference-oriented or, more precisely, must be understood as a means to maximize preference-satisfaction. In effect, Neoclassical Theory is a narrow version of consequentialism in which the only consequence that matters is to the extent that a homogeneous preference-satisfaction index is maximized, everything the economist does would be instrumental to preference satisfaction.
3) Methodological instrumentalism of neoclassical economics is equilibrium imposition, that is, assuming that behavior hovers around some discovered analytical equilibrium and then asking questions about the probability that, once in equilibrium, the system has a propensity to stay or stay. move away, which is known as a “stability analysis”.
discursive power
Fine and Saad-Filho (2018) argue that neoclassical economics depends on mathematical models and a corresponding deductive method at the almost exclusive expense of other forms of reasoning. Arnsperger and Varoufakis demonstrate that if, on the one hand, this is decisive for the inefficiency of this economic theory, at the same time, this is where the discursive power of neoclassicism lies.
Arnsperger and Varoufakis state that the discursive power of neoclassicism is largely due to the occult nature of the three characteristics of neoclassical theory set out above, which makes it even less likely that neoclassical economists will be open to a pluralist debate about the characteristics of their very least of its methodological path, which in fact constitutes it as a kind of method based on inductive reasoning.
In this sense, Arnsperger and Varoufakis describe, methodological equilibrium is nothing more than methodological instrumentalism (as is the case with Consumer Theory or Game Theory), that is, an imposition of Equilibrium Theory is not only necessary to predict the outcome of the interaction, as it is also essential to define the agents' preferences instrumentally. For Arnsperger and Varoufakis in the General Theory of Equilibrium, their best professionals affirm it categorically as being that there is convergence towards some general equilibrium, but this can only be proved in restrictive special cases.
Arnsperger and Varoufakis consider that the ability of neoclassicists to attract research funding and institutional prominence is largely explained by their success in keeping these three theoretical characteristics of neoclassicism set out above (Methodological Individualism, Methodological Instrumentalism and Methodological Equilibrium) well hidden. More than that, neoclassical economists are encouraged to produce all kinds of models, but it discourages pluralism and penalizes any deviation from, or even explicit discussion of, their own theoretical characteristics.
The individual effort of the worker is nowadays often modeled as a function of sectoral unemployment (for example, efficiency wage models), and the microstrategies of companies reflect the macroeconomic environment. However, and despite these interesting links between the microagent and the macrophenomenon, the explanatory trajectory remains one that starts from the agent and maps, unidirectionally, to the social structure. (ARNPERGER AND VAROUFAKIS, 2008, p.8)
This is what Fine and Saad-Filho describe for neoclassical economists as slaves and slave owners, serfs and masters, men and women (in all societies and times), as well as capitalists and workers, are indiscriminately motivated in exactly the same way. likewise, to maximize his self-interest, whether expressed as profit, utility, or whatever.
Fine and Saad-Filho point out that for Marxist economists, on the contrary, economic motives play an enormous role, it is of the utmost importance in the way they are formed and pursued in different historical circumstances.
The arbitrary and perverse assumptions of the homo economicus that derive from its dependence on rationality, given preferences and the sole motivation of self-interest, are other aspects of opposition between Marxist Economics and the current mainstream. This is not because these points challenge Marxist theoretical elaboration, but the central question is why neoclassicals exclude many vital questions in their analyzes and theoretical constructions, such as why we have the preferences we do and why we behave the way we do. how we do it.
EM's uniqueness lies in the way it conceptualizes and explains exploitation and draws its consequences for understanding the nature, dynamics and contradictions of capitalism. As stated above, while neoclassical economics perceives the economy as a collection of individuals more or less efficiently organized through the market, EM is systemic, identifying economy-wide structures and processes, agents and relationships, and classes, as opposed to simply related individuals. through market supply and demand.
The power of the discourse of neoclassical (neoliberal) economics lies in the effect of the adoption of reality falsificationism in economics, falsifiable general laws, impossibility of empirical data and theoretical constructions.
Marxist critique of economics mainstream
Miliband (1999, p. 471) states that the model in the classic Marxist form of class analysis constitutes a powerful organizing principle of social and political analysis and provides the best available method capable of making sense of theoretical and empirical coherence to the vast accumulation of data. of all kinds that make up the historical record and the present life of society. (MILIBAND, 1999, p. 471)
In line with Fine and Saad-Filho, class society is about who works, how, and for whom, with what consequences and, not least, who can exploit whom in order to appropriate surplus production without having worked for it except through ownership or exaggerated rewards for exercising control and management. As under a monarchy, not everyone can be king or queen, so not everyone can choose to be a capitalist under capitalism; otherwise there would be no workers.
In this way, the contrast between EM and economics is circumscribed and made explicit. mainstream for which commitment to the market is entirely to the fore, without questioning whether the market system, and the class relations it represents, remains appropriate and without assessing why workers are exploited in the systematic form taken by technical change. through the increasing use of machinery, the determinants of wages, prices and distribution and the role of the financial system and the recurrence of economic crises.
It is necessary to consider that capitalism's extraordinary capacity to develop the productive forces is simultaneously limited and misguided by its commitment to private profit as opposed to collective forms of ownership, control, distribution and consumption.
The consequences are evident in the dysfunctions and injustices of contemporary life, such as Brazil today, according to the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply, Brazil has the largest cattle herd in the world and is the biggest exporter of this meat[I] while a portion of the Brazilian population faces a queue at the butcher shop to receive a bone donation, because they do not have the income to buy beef as part of their basic subsistence food Friday[ii].
This is the result of an economic policy in which the market has priority and decision-making supremacy. supply and guarantee its people as a priority and export the surplus produced. It is these arbitrary assumptions and the sole motivation of self-interest that characterize the homo economicus and due to these characteristics that result from aspects of opposition between MS and economics mainstream.
Unlike neoclassical economics, EM considers social classes, rather than individuals, as the starting point for understanding the nature of the economy.
Fine and Saad-Filho (2011) point out as a central category of EM the Theory of Labor Value (TVT) and that it is imperative for the analysis of the neoliberal economy to mobilize, to place the concept of TVT at the center of the debate in order to apprehend this object of study. study – contemporary capitalism.
According to Fine and Saad-Filho, there are two essential contrasts between EM and current mainstream;
First, it is inappropriate to understand the capitalist (or any other) economy in terms of “equilibrium”, since it is never achieved in practice, and its analytical use obscures the sources of conflicts and dynamics within the economy.
Second is that the forces for change have to be identified and the analysis taken further in understanding their implications and how they interact with each other. (FINE AND SAAD-FILHO, 2011, p.21)
As tributaries of the Classical Political Economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, many neoclassical economists consider that TVT must be understood as a theory of price, quantified by the labor time necessary to produce the goods and the formation of prices that can be derived algebraically by the relation exchange.
The conceptualization of ME comprises TVT, and this work time does not only involve what is called “live” work or the time of those who work on the current product, but also dead work, the workforce that was formerly used in the production of raw materials and equipment needed for production.
And this is a specificity of capitalism. In non-capitalist societies commodity production and most goods and services are produced for direct consumption and not for exchange on the market. In capitalism, the market is the most important. In bourgeois society there is the generalized production of commodities.
In capitalist society, commodity owners, as a rule, are not just looking to earn a living – they want (and should) make a profit (to survive in the market). For this reason, point out Fine and Saad-Fiho (2011) “production decisions and the level and structure of employment, as well as the standard of living of society, are based on the profitability of companies”.
Another specificity of capitalist society is salaried work, which, just as money existed in other times, is in capitalist society that it becomes predominant as a resource for surplus production and not just for the exchange of goods and subsistence, which happened recently about 400 years ago. years and in some other regions and countries even more recently.
Neoclassical Economic Theory defines capital as a set of things, including means of production, money and financial assets. O mainstream designates knowledge and community relations as human or social capital.
For Marx this is a falsification of reality because these human attributes have always existed throughout history.
“A horse, a hammer, or a million dollars may or may not be capital; it depends on the context in which they are used. If they are involved in production for profit through direct production or indirect employment of wage labor, then they are capital; otherwise they are simply animals, tools or bank notes”. (FINE AND SAAD-FILHO, 2011, p.26)
Moreover, contrary to what neoclassical economists conceive, capital is not just a general relationship between producers and sellers of goods, or a market relationship of supply and demand. Rather, it involves exploiting class relations.
This social relationship includes two classes, defined by their ownership, control and use of the means of production. On the one hand are the capitalists, who own the deputy, employ workers and own what they produce; on the other hand, there are workers' wages, which are employed by the capitalist and are directly engaged in production without any property rights over what they produce.
Labor value theory and the capitalist exploitation system
Given these logical imperatives, both Adam Smith and David Ricardo realized that prices will systematically diverge from the labor time required to produce them. Both from the perspective of Smith and Ricardo, as well as that of Marx, it is concluded that commodities must have a kind of reward included in their price, a premium corresponding to the amount of capital advanced and the time to produce the commodity, in which the objective is greater profit to equal the rate of profit of the advanced capitals.
Given these logical imperatives, both Smith and Ricardo realized that prices will systematically diverge from the labor time needed to produce the commodity. Furthermore, a significant change in demand will affect prices temporarily, as well as rents and monopolies. The question is to what extent the value (of the work) can explain and quantitatively constitute the price.
Marx's answer is that only in a (basically capitalist) society where commodity production is ubiquitous are the different types of labor measured against each other by society itself through the mechanism of exchange. for the economy mainstream whatever labor has been contributed to the production of commodities, whether in the past or in the present, everything is observed from the point of view of the exchange relation. And all the different types of work are made equivalent, or more exactly measurable against each other, in terms of the prices they command.
Obviously this capitalist formulation is a falsification of reality, not all jobs count in the same way. The more qualified or less competent the workforce in production functions counts differently. In addition, capital intensity for production, the presence of a monopoly, and the payment of rent shape the value of the commodity.
In an illustrative way about the formation of the price from the observation of variables such as greater capital employed, more skilled labor, time spent for production, comparative examples of different economic sectors are shown here, such as the energy sector in contrast to the construction sector civil, that of the aeronautics industry with the food services sector.
For more explicit identification one can look at goods produced with a greater amount of intensive capital as in a nuclear power company in contrast to the construction industry which adopts intensive labor or goods which take longer to be produced as in airplanes. in contrast to restaurant meals.
Strictly speaking, EM recognizes that the capitalist commodity is a system that links production by salaried labor with the purchase and sale of commodities for profit. Ben Fine and Saad-Filho highlight three problems in this regard from Marx;
1) How a system based on free market exchange can generate profits and simultaneously hide the capture of surplus labor from salaried workers.
2) How profits can increase, especially through the development of new production methods and processes under capitalism (from the simple modernization of the factory system, for example, something that tends to be overlooked by the relationship of function in the social economy and market of wage-earner production).
3) What are the economic and social consequences of the way capitalist production evolves (increasingly under corporate or, nowadays, financial control), and how such developments prepared the conjuncture for the overcoming of capitalism.
Marx's explanation is based on specifying the class relations of capitalism, namely between capital and labor. While capitalists own the means of production, the working class can only gain access to work and a reasonable means of subsistence if they sell their ability to work as wage workers.
This distinction between the ability to work and work itself is decisive for understanding capitalism, and it is the ability to work, which Marx called labor power, that is bought and sold (as if work itself were a commodity). With the salary also being a variable as well as a product, as well as for economic scholars purely concerned with supply and demand.
Fine and Saad-Filho (2011) present Marx's criticism of Smith regarding what he believes in the simple price rule when instruments and machines are used in production. The reason is that, in addition to workers, owners of capital are also entitled to the value of the product in the form of profit (and landowners to rent), and therefore this value must be reflected in price formation. It is at this point that Marx disagrees with Smith because this simple and direct exchange (in proportion to the labor time of production) is not typical of any human society other than capitalist and Smith's theoretical abstract construction.
Although commodity exchanges are based on quantitative equivalence relationships between different types of work, this relationship is indirect. Marx rigorously develops his own analysis of value and systematically in an explanation of the values that underlie the commodity and prices under capitalism.
Marx's conceptual innovation is what he called commodity fetishism, a categorization that identifies exchange value, but also use value, distinguishes between price and utility. EM demonstrates the relationships between price formation and the exchange of goods to reveal the social relations between those who produce these goods and how the fetishism of goods allows the exploration of relations linked to capitalism.
the added value
Capitalists combine the factors of production, usually purchased from other capitalists, with the labor of wage workers hired on the market to produce commodities for sale at a profit. The circuit of industrial capital captures the essential aspects of capitalist production forms.
Marx calls surplus value the difference between the money invested, used in the production process and that which exceeds from the sale of the commodity produced. Surplus value is the source of industrial and commercial profit and other forms of surplus revenue such as interest and rent.
Surplus value cannot arise by exchange alone. While some may benefit from selling goods above their value (unequal exchange), for example by unscrupulous traders and speculators, this is not possible for all sellers. Because sellers are also buyers and if all sellers charged customers 10% more, such gains would be lost to suppliers, and in the end there would be no extra profit from this exercise. Another factor is that competition tends to increase supply in any industry that offers exceptional profits, eventually crowding out individual or cunning advantages.
As described here at the beginning of this section, the circuit of capital shows that surplus value is the difference between the value of the capital outflow and the value of the capital inflow. So that, as we have seen, the difference cannot be due to unequal exchanges, the increase in value must derive from the production process. According to Marx, surplus value arises from the use in the production of a commodity, which must have the property not only of being able to create new value but also more new value than it costs.
“[…] the origin and nature of surplus value are clearly understood, surplus labor + necessary labor is considered, in short, the overall working day as a fixed quantity, the differences in the magnitude of the most surplus value are lost sight of. -value, there is no knowledge of the productivity of capital, of the coercive extraction of surplus labor, formed by absolute surplus labor and also by the endogenous impulse of capital to reduce the necessary labor time; thus, the historical reason for capital is not clarified”. (MARX, 1980, p. 837)
Marx is very clear in stating that just the fact that a product enters the production process and leaves another, by itself, regardless of the context or human intervention, does not create surplus value. And this must be understood because it designates the presumption of the two aspects of the commodity, use value and exchange value.
In such a way that value is not a product of nature (although it depends on it) nor a substance physically incorporated in the commodity: value is a social relationship (Fine and Saad-Filho, 2011) between the produced commodity that appear as exchange value , a relationship between things. Goods and services only have value under certain social and historical circumstances.
For this reason, value must be understood as a social relation typical of capitalist societies, its source – and the origin of surplus value – must be the performance of commodity production by salaried labor. Once the inputs of merchandise, capital and labor power are physically mixed in the process until they are released, their value is transferred and forms part of the value of production. More than adding value with the transformation of the raw material, the product, the transfer value in the employment itself of labor that simultaneously adds new value to the product.
The decisive factor is that the value of the means of production is merely transferred, therefore production is only profitable if the capitalist exploits the worker, if the added value exceeds wage costs; “surplus value is the difference between the value added by workers and the value of labor. Put another way, wage workers are exploited because they work longer than it takes to produce the goods they can buy with their wages. For the remainder of their working time, workers are exploited – they produce (surplus) value for capitalists”. (FINE AND SAAD-FILHO, 2011, p.28)
Value formed through exploitation and surplus extraction is a systemic feature of capitalism. In short, exploitation is the fuel that drives capitalist production and exchange.
Marx still categorizes Absolute Surplus Value and Relative Surplus Value;
a) Absolute Surplus Value is characterized by an increase in the intensity of work, condensing more work into the same work time. Increased effort, speed and concentration of the worker increases the level of production and reduces unit costs; therefore, profitability increases. That is, the worker produces more goods, and creates more value, for the same hour of work.
It could also be the lengthening of the regular or overtime workday or the availability of mobile devices and computers that allow employees to extend to 16 to 18 hours a day.
b) Relative Added Value, which is the increase in productivity, mainly through the introduction of new machines in the production process, thus reducing labor and wage costs, which will contribute to increasing profitability.
Conclusion
It is possible to conclude that MS poses the strongest intellectual threat to the economy mainstream, as well as the most powerful theoretical framework for opposition to capitalism and its systemic model of exploitation. It is therefore not surprising that MS is relentlessly shunned in teaching and scientific research.
EM challenges the Neoclassical Theory of Economics on all these fronts in terms of methodological individualism, mathematical methods, empirical methods, positive-normative dualism and the General Theory of Equilibrium.
It is also necessary to overcome the power of the Financial Economy (Beluzzo, 2016) because today it makes up a substantial part of the profit of the very industries that seek profitability in the capital market and not in increasing productivity by distributing dividends among shareholder controllers without producing new value , which constitutes a metamorphosis of capital.
In this respect EM recognizes surplus value as an exceptional vector of the capitalist mode of production capable of developing technology and productive forces, of raising the standard of living, but concomitantly contradictorily it is also this mode of production that condemns the brutal exploitation of workers, to the inevitable and volatile mass unemployment, genocide, the uncontrolled destruction of the environment, destitution, starvation while all the means to abolish these conditions are readily available.
At the same time that it provides unparalleled achievements in education, health and culture, the guidelines of the economy mainstream conditions the exclusion of the majority of the population from access to these goods, in addition to other forms of human, racial and ethnic oppression.
Since the connection between theory and practice is a fundamental characteristic of Marxism and considering that the rise of neoliberalism, which established an even more powerful economic elite, occurred after the subtraction of the Social Revolution agenda, it is the revitalization of EM that provides elements of pluralism par excellence. , for a reorientation of the economy from the political organization of the working class and its institutions of representation (parties, unions, parliamentary mandates, governments) to direct society towards a future perspective of prosperity, growth, development and distribution of the wealth produced for those who produce it.
*Marlon D'Souza, journalist, is a master's student in world political economy at UFABC.
Reference
ARNSPERGER, C.; VAROUFAKIS, Y. (2008), Neoclassical Economics: Three Identifying Features. In: E. Fullbrook, ed. Pluralist Economics. London: Zed Books, 2008.
BELUZZO. Gonzaga Luiz. Capital and its metamorphoses. São Paulo: Unesp, 2016
FINE, Ben.; SAAD-FILHO, Alfredo. (2018). Marxist economics. Fischer, L. et al. Rethinking Economics: An Introduction to Pluralist Economics, London and New York: Routledge, 2018.
MARX, Carl. Surplus Value Theories: Critical History of Economic Thought: Book 4 of Capital. São Paulo: Difel, 1984.
MILLIBAND, Ralph. Class analysis. In: GIDDENS, A.; TURNER, J. social theory today. São Paulo: Unesp, 1999.
Notes
[I] BRAZIL is the fourth largest producer of grains and the largest exporter of beef in the world, says study. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply. Brasilia, June 1st. 2021. Available at: https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-noticias/-/noticia/62619259/brasil-e-o-quarto-maior-produtor-de-graos-e-o-maior-exportador-de-carne-bovina-do-mundo-diz-estudo.
[ii] A queue to get bone donations is an example of the struggle of Brazilian families against hunger. G1. São Paulo, July 25th. 2021. Available at: https://g1.globo.com/fantastico/noticia/2021/07/25/fila-para-conseguir-doacao-de-ossos-e-flagrante-da-luta-de-familias-brasileiras-contra-a-fome.ghtml
