Proto-neoclassicals and the theory of production

Author(s):  
Paul Walker
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 273-287

The article examines the impact of the discourses concerning idleness and food on the formation of “production art” in the socio-political context of revolutionary Petrograd. The author argues that the development of the theory and practice of this early productionism was closely related to the larger political, social and ideological processes in the city. The Futurists, who were in the epicenter of Petrograd politics during the Civil War (1918–1921), were well acquainted with both of the discourses mentioned, and they contrasted the idleness of the old art with the dedicated labor of the “artist-proletarians” whom they valued as highly as people in the “traditional” working professions. And the search for the “right to exist” became the most important goal in a starving city dominated by the ideology of radical communism. The author departs from the prevailing approach in the literature, which links the artistic thought of the Futurists to Soviet ideology in its abstract, generalized form, and instead elucidates ideological influences in order to consider the early production texts in their immediate social and political contexts. The article shows that the basic concepts of production art (“artist-proletarian,” “creative labor,” etc.) were part of the mainstream trends in the politics of “red Petrograd.” The Futurists borrowed the popular notion of the “commune” for the title of their main newspaper but also worked with the Committees of the Rural Poor and with the state institutions for procurement and distribution. They took an active part in the Fine Art Department of Narkompros (People’s Commissariat of Education). The theory of production art was created under these conditions. The individualistic protest and “aesthetic terror” of pre-revolutionary Futurism had to be reconsidered, and new state policy measures were based on them. The harsh socio-economic context of war communism prompted artists to rethink their own role in the “impending commune.” Further development of these ideas led to the Constructivist movement and strongly influenced the extremely diverse trends within the “left art” of the 1920s.


1989 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 655-668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Cleveland ◽  
Roger G. Schroeder ◽  
John C. Anderson
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Biddle

At the 1927 meetings of the American Economic Association, Paul Douglas presented a paper entitled “A Theory of Production,” which he had coauthored with Charles Cobb. The paper proposed the now familiar Cobb–Douglas function as a mathematical representation of the relationship between capital, labor, and output. The paper's innovation, however, was not the function itself, which had originally been proposed by Knut Wicksell, but the use of the function as the basis of a statistical procedure for estimating the relationship between inputs and output. The paper's least squares regression of the log of the output-to-capital ratio in manufacturing on the log of the labor-to-capital ratio—the first Cobb–Douglas regression—was a realization of Douglas's innovative vision that a stable relationship between empirical measures of inputs and outputs could be discovered through statistical analysis, and that this stable relationship could cast light on important questions of economic theory and policy. This essay provides an account of the introduction of the Cobb–Douglas regression: its roots in Douglas's own work and in trends in economics in the 1920s, its initial application to time series data in the 1927 paper and Douglas's 1934 book The Theory of Wages, and the early reactions of economists to this new empirical tool.


1979 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 109
Author(s):  
A.L. Levine ◽  
Luigi L. Pasinetti
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 1397-1415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teodoro Dario Togati

AbstractIn this paper, I tackle the key issue raised by Pasinetti, namely why Keynes failed to accomplish his revolution and build a unifying ‘monetary theory of production’ framework. I argue that this occurred because, following his Marshallian background, he adopted an oversimplified view of the structure of theories, a problem which, following Leontief, might be labelled as ‘implicit theorising’ (IT). By making a comparison between the General Theory and standard macroeconomics based on Lakatos’s ‘research programme’ notion, this paper explores IT in a systematic fashion and stresses two key points. First, Keynes did not attack the ‘true’ orthodox postulates but only the conclusions deriving from them. Secondly, he failed to articulate his own research programme effectively. Based on these points, the paper concludes that filling such gaps in Keynes’s theory is the precondition for restoring his generality claim.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document