Paul Fabra's "Essay on the Rehabilitation of Political Economy" (described by Raymond Barre in 1974 as a “prolific” Essay) aims at nothing less than a complete reversal of perspective in contemporary economic thought. This shift proposes a systemic political economy grounded in a realist, formally definable framework of the world, in contrast to subjectivist approaches. More profoundly than it first appears, this concept emancipates economic thought from a hegemony that originated as academic neoclassicism and evolved into political neoliberalism.
Basic economic theory can however be constructed by means of definitions that are admissible in formal ontologies based on set theory. Neglecting it exposes us to errors that are all the more serious because they are essential. “Part I – Introduction to the Objective political economy”, the first part of this endeavor, and then chapter 1 of its second part, “Part II – Political economy propositions”, argue this choice of method.
Political economy defines a commodity functionally: it is any good or service offered for sale. This makes commodity the precise generic term for the non-monetary item in any economic exchange.
A rigorous, formal definition of a commodity is only possible if it facilitates a complete taxonomy of economic exchange. This theoretical necessity is met by grounding economic science in a proper theory of the commodity, as undertaken in chapter 2 of “Part II – Political economy propositions”. This foundational clarity is essential to avoid several categorical errors, such as the mistaken classification of labor (as the expenditure of human energy), knowledge, natural resources in their raw state, and money as commodities.
It originates from a question that seems reasonable: what causes the varying prices of goods and services exchanged for money or through barter? The common answer, rooted in the neoclassical school of thought—scarcity—is a prime example of this error, as it often serves as an unproven assumption.
The remedy is to replace this overly general question with an analysis of prices across each category of commodities, beginning with primary commodities that generate true income. However, a robust theory of the commodity alone is insufficient for this task. It must be built upon three other properly defined foundational concepts: the enterprise, accounting, and capital.
The prerequisites that have just been indicated open the way to discerning what is assuredly true not only about profit and employment but also about the total distribution of income, about wages, about interest, about the prices at which enterprises sell, about money. Once this path has been made, at the time of the formulation of an economic policy, the essential aspects of what is specific to economic exchanges and transfers are better held together, at the same time as the reasons why the errors and shortcomings of the basic theorization of the economic system make the government of the latter a dispenser of perverse effects and collective errors emerge more clearly.
The foundational concepts just outlined enable a clear understanding of what can be objectively verified—not only regarding profit and employment but also the total distribution of income, wages, interest, enterprises' selling prices, and money. Once this groundwork is laid, the core mechanics of economic exchanges and transfers integrate more coherently into policy formulation. This clarity also reveals how errors and omissions in the fundamental theory of the economic system lead to governance that generates perverse outcomes and leads society astray.