Political Economy Quarterly

 

Latest Issue

  • An Outline of the Basic Economic Law of Socialism

    RONG Zhaozi;LI Yaping;Institute for Advanced Study of Economic and Social Development, Anhui University;School of Economics, Anhui University;

    This paper explores the three major tenets of the basic economic law of socialism in accordance with a three-tiered logical framework: the purpose of production, the methods of production, and the development trend of reproduction. Firstly, the labor-capital sharing contract dictates that the production purpose of state-owned enterprises must balance the individual interests of workers and the public interests. This enterprise production purpose, which encompasses the “complete interests of workers”, is added value. It is merely the manifestation in the form of value at the enterprise level of the social production purpose of “meeting the people's growing expectation for a better life”. Secondly, there are two production methods for added value: absolute added value production and relative added value production. Among them, relative added value production is the most important means to achieve the socialist production purpose. Relative added value production is driven by innovation, enabling the continuous improvement of social productive forces. Finally, the distribution of innovation dividends in socialism takes into account both the overall and individual interests of workers, and maximiazes the interests of all the people through a balance between consumption and accumulation. This determines that the law of economic growth in socialism can only be as follows: economic growth drives up the consumption of workers; consumption growth promotes the improvement of workers' capabilities; the improvement of workers' capabilities drives the continuous acceleration of enterprise innovation, which in turn drives the continuous growth of the social economy. This is a process of virtuous cycle and spiral ascent, fundamentally different from the law of capital accumulation that the polarization of capitalism inevitably leads to economic crises.

    2026 01 v.5;No.14 [Abstract][OnlineView][Download 1322K]

  • Monopoly of Currency Power and Wealth Concentration under the Monetization of Wealth: With a Discussion on the Impact of the Central Bank Digital Currency System

    LO Dic;ZHANG Quan;Lingnan College, Sun Yat-sen University;Qianhai Financial Holdings Co., Ltd.;

    The contemporary monetization of wealth intensifies the alienation in which “money obscures real labor relations”. The credit-based U.S. dollar system siphons global wealth internationally and exacerbates class polarization domestically through the U.S. “dollar-Treasury bond” circulation. Meanwhile, the decentralization narrative of cryptocurrencies fails to break free from the discipline of capitalist production relations and instead degenerates into a new form of monopoly. Based on historical materialism, our study proceeds along the thread of “laws of historical evolution-analysis of contemporary contradictions-future technological innovation”. Firstly, we sort out the evolutionary logic of wealth from products and commodities to money and capital, and reveal how the credit system has become a remedial mechanism for capitalist wealth accumulation. Secondly, we deconstruct the “center-periphery” order of the U.S. dollar system and its crises across institutional, technological, and geopolitical dimensions, while analyzing the class nature of concentrated currency power and the paradox of cryptocurrencies. Finally, we explore the potential of Central Bank Digital Currencies(CBDCs) to restructure currency power, examine the bottlenecks in global CBDC practices, and assess the impact of the U.S. policy shift. We argue that CBDCs provide a viable path to break the private monopoly of currency power. Accordingly, we propose a socialist CBDC governance path: leveraging public ownership to lead infrastructure development, using technology to empower common prosperity, and promoting multilateral cooperation to break the U.S. dollar pricing monopoly. This path aims to provide a solution for global digital currency governance in the blockchain era that combines socialist attributes with practical value.

    2026 01 v.5;No.14 [Abstract][OnlineView][Download 1180K]

  • Are State-owned Enterprises Really Less Efficient? Measuring Enterprise Efficiency from a Labor-oriented Perspective

    LANG Kun;DU Junhao;School of Marxism, Tsinghua University;Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University;

    Mainstream economics typically uses indicators like profit margins and total factor productivity(TFP) to conclude that state-owned enterprises(SOEs) are inefficient. However, these capital-centric metrics primarily measure the extraction of surplus value rather than genuine value creation. Drawing on Marxist political economy, this paper develops a “labor-oriented” index to evaluate comprehensive enterprise efficiency. Utilizing firm-level data from China Industrial Enterprises Database(1998—2007), we compare efficiency across different ownership types. Our findings reveal two key points. First, while SOEs report lower profit margins than private firms, their comprehensive efficiency is significantly higher. SOEs allocate a larger share of revenue to employee compensation and taxes, reflecting their active role in safeguarding labor rights and fulfilling social responsibilities. Second, although profit margins rose across all enterprise types during the sample period, the drivers differed fundamentally. In the industrial sector, SOEs profit growth stemmed from substantive improvements in value creation, whereas private enterprise profit growth relied heavily on squeezing labor income and leveraging preferential tax policies. This study offers a novel labor-oriented framework for evaluating enterprise efficiency, providing critical insights for SOE reform and implementing the “Investing in People” strategy.

    2026 01 v.5;No.14 [Abstract][OnlineView][Download 1455K]

  • Does Capitalist Development Follow the Productivity Criterion: An Annotation on the Theory of Relative Surplus Value Production

    WANG Geng;WANG Ce;MA Mengting;School of Economics, Beijing Wuzi University;School of Economics, Nanjing Audit University;School of Economics & Management, Nanchang University;

    The law of relative surplus value production is generally considered to explain the dynamic efficiency of capitalism, but there is doubt as to whether the capitalist production could always promote technological progress according to Karl Marx. Based on an analysis of Das Kapital and the manuscripts regarding technological change, this paper clarifies that a higher profit rate, rather than extra surplus value, is the basis for capitalists adopting new technologies. This criterion for technological selection may lead to partial technological regression, creating a scenario of “contradictory movement” on relative surplus value production and the development of capitalist productive forces. Based on this analysis, this paper utilizes available input-output data to assess the development of labor productivity in the United States from 2000 to 2022. This study found that although labor productivity in the US has generally been increasing, when examined by sector and year, only 64.6% of technological change met the productivity criterion, which is in contrast with the 78.6% matched of the profit rate criterion, thus corroborating the limitations of capitalism in hindering technological progress. These findings inspire us to prevent these disadvantages relying on the positive function of the state-owned economy and an empowered government in the practice of developing a socialist market economy.

    2026 01 v.5;No.14 [Abstract][OnlineView][Download 1728K]

  • Marx's Theory of Value Transformation: Interpretation of Its Meaning and Mathematical Analysis

    SONG Xianwei;CUI Baomin;GONG Tongyao;School of Economics, Shandong University of Finance and Economics;

    The transformation from value to production price in Capital is, in a methodological sense, a shift from the abstract to the concrete and from the general to the specific. In this sense, the price distortion in neoclassical economics, that is, the deviation from the optimal price to the sub-optimal price, is also a kind of value transformation. In terms of economic implications, both value transformation and price distortion are caused by the inconsistency between the private costs of economic actors and the real social costs, and both will produce resource allocation effects and income distribution effects. From a methodological perspective, neoclassical economists do not deny the neoclassical price theory due to price distortion, nor do they have any reason to deny the labor theory of value simply because of the transformation of value. Furthermore, after taking into account the transformation of constant capital, the reason why the equations of total value equal to total production price and total surplus value equal to total profit cannot hold simultaneously under general conditions is that the “total surplus value” in the existing literature is actually only a part of all the surplus values involved in redistribution. If the calculation scope of total surplus value is expanded from the last production stage to all production stages, that is, the surplus value contained in the constant capital is also included, and it is assumed that the total exploitation rate remains unchanged before and after the transformation, then both total equations can and must hold simultaneously.

    2026 01 v.5;No.14 [Abstract][OnlineView][Download 1279K]

  • Technology, Institutions, Market, and Labor: Towards a More Comprehensive Technological Analysis Framework

    ZHANG Lirong;School of Economics, Fujian Normal University;

    In the context of the burgeoning development of new quality productive forces, the issue of technological progress has increasingly become the focal point of academic attention. A review of the academic history shows that the study of technology in the field of political economy has undergone an evolution from early neglect, to gradual revival, and then to a path of diverse development. This paper first systematically reviews the basic paradigms and theoretical approaches related to technology research, including those of the Classical School of Economics, Neoclassical Economic Growth Theory, Schumpeter and the New Schumpeterian School of Technological Innovation, the French Regulation School, the American School of Accumulation and Social Structures, and Development Economics from a technological perspective. It then analyzes technological progress theory from a Marxist perspective, emphasizing that technology is always “embedded” in the social context in which it exists, evolving through continuous interaction with society. Finally, this paper identifies three theoretical perspectives, namely institutions, markets, and labor, accordingly proposing a more comprehensive analytical framework for technology. By integrating the above theoretical traditions, this paper explores their compatibility and complementarity with Marxist economics in both thought and methodology, thereby enriching the theoretical content of technological progress research from a political economy perspective.

    2026 01 v.5;No.14 [Abstract][OnlineView][Download 1350K]