Theories of Transformation of Capitalism, bourgeois concepts to the effect that since World War II, under the impact of a number of factors capitalism has changed radically in its essence and ceased to be exploitative in character. These theories appeared at the second and third stages of the general crisis of capitalism, as an alternative to the emerging socialist world. They belong to the institutionalsociological trend in bourgeois political economy (see Institutionalism), characterised by a unification of political economy and sociology. The problems of exchange, consumption, organisation of the market and moral principles are brought to the fore. Much importance is attached to the role in the economy of such institutions as the state, big corporations, trades unions, and so on. All these theories attempt, to a greater or lesser extent, to rely on certain real processes in the development of capitalism since the last war (the change in the organisation of capitalist production, expansion of state interference in the economy, the scientific and technological revolution). By interpreting these processes in a superficial and deliberately false way, bourgeois ideologists use them to prove that capitalism has every opportunity for “ selfimprovement”. While noting numerous changes in the modern capitalist economy and, in a number of cases, championing new “improvements”, however, the theorists of “transformation” always retain (directly or in a veiled form) private capitalist property and the domination of 358 big monopolistic corporations in the economy. Moreover, they regard “ transformed” capitalism as a system consolidating private property and the dominant positions of big capital. The theories of the "transformation of capitalism" unite different conceptions including two main trends, viz., “orthodox” and bourgeoisliberal. The “orthodox” trend is represented by modern versions of the theory of mixed economy and the theory of welfare state; the bourgeois-liberal trend, by the theory of the "new industrial society”. Both trends, while on the whole continuing to defend state-monopoly capitalism, differ in the forms and methods used to do so. The "mixed economy" theorists deem it necessary to preserve and develop existing forms of state interference in the economy which are most advantageous to monopoly capital. The advocates of the "new industrial society" (above all, John K. Galbraith) criticise a number of forms of modern state-monopoly capitalism, particularly the military industrial complex. The two trends differ in their methodologies too. The theory of the "new industrial society" tries quite consistently to rely on the method of technological determinism, new for bourgeois political economy, while most of the "mixed economy" theorists are adherents of traditional subjective methodology. The two trends are also distinguished, to a certain extent, in their attitude to socialism. Galbraith and his supporters flirt with socialism, while the adherents of the “orthodox” trend, on the contrary, do not conceal their sharply negative attitude towards socialism. The theories of the " democratisation of capital”, the "managerial revolution”, "stages of growth”, and " convergence of the two systems" (see Theory of Convergence) are among the “ transformation” concepts.