Ilyina (Rzhevskaya) Marina Sergeevna, Candidate of economic sciences, associate professor, sub-department of economics and management, Admiral F. F. Ushakov Marine State University (93 Lenina avenue, Novorossiysk, Krasnodar region, Russia), email@example.com
Background. Development of productive forces over time has predetermined qualitative changes in industrial relations. A high level of production technology demanded concentration of capital and led to formation of associated or joint-stock property. A study of the economic content of shareholding relationships discovers two obvious contradictions, which are a prerequisite for a modern transformation of capitalist property forms. The purpose of the article is to analyze the said process and its results.
Materials and methods. This article discusses theoretical observations by various authors that describe the process of ownership transformation; describes the main conflict of the said theory with reality and logic. The author’s views contrast with some theoretical positions, and there are arguments of such criticism. In other words the methodological capacity included the methods of comparative-economic and historical-economic analysis, which enabled to map the content and importance for development of organizations of all scales of the theory and practice of property relations, taking into account the specific historical and logical stages of its evolution.
Results. As a result, the study managed to confirm the course of the transformation process of capitalist ownership, but passing in another direction. Is has been found that the direction of transformation is not from capitalist property to noncapitalist one due to the “collectivism” form of ownership and actions of salaried managers in the interests of the entire society, but there is a transformation of private or private-collective property into “managerial” or “administrative” property because of contradictions in relations of private-collective property themselves, to be more precise, because of divergence of ownership and influence on the property.
Conclusions. It has been established that as a result of the actively flowing transformation of ownership forms, the most vulnerable figure becomes the proprietorcapitalist and cited reasons for such patterns. The article offers some security measures for an owner, including reduction of capital “sparseness” and regular execution of specific functions of an owner.
stock or associated ownership, private individual property, collective property, capital, capitalism, owner, capitalist, manager, executive, transformation of capitalist property, “techno-structure”, property relations.
1. Marks K., Engel's F. Soch. [Works]. Vol. 23, p. 642.
2. Tsennye bumagi: ucheb. [Securities: textbook]. Ed. by V. D. Bazilevich. Moscow, 2011, 1094 p.
3. Marks K., Engel's F. Soch. [Works]. Vol. 25, part I, p. 479.
4. Marks K., Engel's F. Sobr. soch. [Collected works]. Moscow: Politizdat, 1961, vol. 23, pp. 3–907.
5. Marks K., Engel's F. Sobr. soch. [Collected works]. Moscow: Politizdat, 1961, vol. 25, part 1, pp. 3–545.
6. Tarando E. E. Obshchestvo. Sreda. Razvitie [Society. Environment. Development]. 2009, no. 1, pp. 3–15.
7. Marks K., Engel's F. Soch. [Works]. 2nd ed, vol. 25, part I. Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1961.
8. Berle A. A., Means G. C. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York, 1934, p. 351.
9. Berle A. A., Means G. C. The modern corporation and private property. New York, 1967, pp. 8, 110.
10. Burnham J. The Managerial Revolution. New York, 1941, p. 70.
11. Berle A. A. Power without Property. New York, 1959, p. 27.
12. Berle A. A. The 20-th Century Capitalist Revolution. New York, 1954, pp. 14, 24.
13. Marks K., Engel's F. Soch. [Works]. Vol. 19, pp. 298–299.
14. Gelbreyt Dzh. K. Ekonomicheskie teorii i tseli obshchestva [Economic theories and goals of society]. Moscow: Progress, 1979, p. 125.
15. Friedmann W. Recht und sozialer Wandel [Legal and social changes]. Frankfurt a. M., 1969, p. 85.
16. Sendler H. Die offentliche Verwaltung [Public administration]. 1974, 3/1974, p. 75.
17. Gelbreyt Dzh. K. Ekonomicheskie teorii i tseli obshchestva [Economic theories and goals of society]. Moscow: Progress, 1979, pp. 70, 125.
18. Vogel H. J. Kontinuitat und Verwandlungen der Eigentumsverfassung [Continuity and transformation of property laws]. P. 25.
19. Fukuyama F. Sil'noe gosudarstvo: Upravlenie i mirovoy poryadok v XXI veke [A strong state: Management and world order in XXI century]. Moscow: KhRANITEL'', 2006, 220 p.
20. Il'ina M. S. Nauka i obrazovanie: khozyaystvo i ekonomika; predprinimatel'stvo; pravo i upravlenie [Science and education: national economy; entrepreneurship; law and administration]. 2015, no. 7 (62).
21. Lyalina A. M. Teoriya menedzhmenta: ucheb. dlya vuzov [Management theory: textbook for universities]. Saint-Petersburg: Piter, 2009, p. 286.
22. Meskon M. Kh., Al'bert M., Khedouri F. Osnovy menedzhmenta: per. s angl. [Basic management: translation from English]. Moscow: Delo, 2005, p. 76.