




版權(quán)說明:本文檔由用戶提供并上傳,收益歸屬內(nèi)容提供方,若內(nèi)容存在侵權(quán),請進(jìn)行舉報或認(rèn)領(lǐng)
文檔簡介
I8g
MarxianEconomicsandModernEconomicTheory
I.InarecentissueoftheKyotoUniversityEconomicReview1ProfessorShibatabroughtupthequestionoftherelativemeritsofMarxianeconomicsandthemoderntheoryofeconomicequilibrium.Hecontendsthatthetheoryofgeneraleconomicequilibrium,whichhasreceiveditsmostpreciseandcompleteformulationintheworksoftheSchoolofLausanne,“isineffectualinmakingclearsystematicallyeithertheorganisationofpresent-daycapitalisticsocietyorthelawsofitsdevelopment”2,whiletheMarxianpoliticaleconomy,“thoughitisnowshowntocontainmanydefects,setsforththeorieswhichareeitherintendedtoenunciatesystematicallytheorganisationofpresent-daycapitalisticsocietyandthelawsgoverningitsdevelopment,orhaveinseparableandnecessarybearingsonthem.”3AndProfessorShibataaskswhatitisthatmakesMarxianeconomicssopowerfulatoolforunderstandingthebasicphenomenaofCapitalismwhilethemathematicaltheoryofeconomicequilibriumisquitepowerless.
ThissuperiorityofMarxianeconomicsseemsstrange,indeed,inviewofthefactthatitworkswithconceptswhicharelongsinceoutdatedandwhichignorethewholedevelopmentofeconomictheorysincethetimeofRicardo.ProfessorShibatathinksthatthesterilityofthetheoryofgeneraleconomicequilibriumisduetoitscomplexityandthehighdegreeofabstractionwhichmakeitsapplicationtoactualproblemsimpossible.Marxianeconomicsinstead,beingconcernedratherwithaggregatesandaveragesthanwiththementalstructureoftheindividualstakingpartintheorganisationofcapitalistproduction,ismoreamenabletodirectpracticalapplication.ProfessorShibatatries,therefore,torestateandsimplifytheLausannesystemofequationssoastomakeitpossibletoapplythempractically.InthisProfessorShibatahasperformedanexceedingly_finepieceofanalysisforwhichanyseriouseconomistshouldbegrateful.Itseemstome,however,thatProfessorShibatahasnottouchedtheveryessentialpointwhichaccountsforthe(realoralleged)superiorityofMarxianover“bourgeois”economics.Itis,therefore,mypurposetodiscuss:(I)inwhattherealorallegedsuperiorityofMarxianeconomicsconsists,and(2)whetherthissuperiorityisduetotheeconomicconceptsusedbyMarx,ortoanexactspecificationoftheinstitutional(or,ifthereaderpreferstheexpression,sociological)datawhichformtheframeworkinwhichtheeconomicprocessworksinCapitalistsociety.4
1KeiShibata,Marx'sAnalysisofCapitalismandtheGeneralEquilibriumTheoryofthe
Lausncc.KyotoUnivertbyimReview,JulyI933.
4AsthewordCapitalismisusedfrequentlyveryambiguouslyitshouldbementionedherethatitisusedinthispaperinitsMarxiansense,i.e.Capitalismmeansanexchange-economywithprivateownershipofthemeansofproduction,towhichthefurthersociologicaldatumisaddedthatthepopulationisdividedintotwoparts,oneofwhichownsthemeansofproductionwhiletheotherpait,owningnomeansofproduction,iscompelledtoworkaswage-earnerswiththemeansofproductionbelongingtotheotherpart.Onlybecauseofthissociologicaldatumdoprofitandinterestappearaspersonalincomeseparatefromwages.
Ig0THEREVIEWOFECONOMICSTUDIES
2.TheMarxist'sclaimtosuperiorityforhiseconomicsis“bourgeois”economicshasutterlyfailedtoexplainthefundamentaldenciesofthedevelopmentoftheCapitalistsystem.Thesetendencies
thatten-are:
theconstantincreaseofthescaleofproductionwhichbysubstitutinglarge-scaleforsmall-scaleproductionhasledtothetransitionfromthefree-competitiveCapitalismofthenineteenthcenturytothepresentmonopolistic(orratheroligopolistic)Capitalism;thesubstitutionofinterventionismand“planning”forlaisser-faire;thetransitionfromfreetradetohighpro-tectionismandeconomicnationalismininternationalrelations;theconstantexpansionofthecapitalistmethodofproductioninnon-capitalistcountries,whichaslongascompetitionwasfreeledtoarelativelypeacefulpermeationofcapitalisteconomyandWesterncivilisationthroughthewholeworld,butwhichwitholigopolisticandinterventionistCapitalismleadstoimperialistrivalryamongtheprincipalcapitalistpowers;theincreaseofeconomicinstabilityinthecapitalistsystem,whichbydestroyingtheeconomicandsocialsecurityofthepopulationofcapitalistcountries,causesthemtorebelagainsttheexistingeconomicsystem,whatevertheideologyandprogrammeunderlyingthisrebellion(SocialismorFascism).
Theclaimthat“bourgeois”economistshavefailedtoexplainthesetendenciesinthedevelopmentofCapitalism,andtoformulatethemintoatheoryofeconomicevolutionseemstobejustifiedindeed.Howutterlytheyfailedtodosoisconspicuousfromthefactthatmanyofthemdeniedthisdevelopmentuntilthephenomenaapparentlybecamesooverwhelmingastobefamiliartoanybodybuttheprofessionaleconomistwhowasalwaysthelasttorecognisetheirexistence.Thusthetendencytowardstheconcentrationofproductionwasdenied,or,ifadmitted,wasregardedasofminorsignificanceforthenatureoftheeconomicsystem,untilthemonopolistic(oroligopolistic)characterofthebasicindustriesbecamesoobviousthataspecialtheoryoflimitedcompetitionhadtobedevelopedtosupplementorthodoxeconomictheory.Thetransitionfromfreetradetoprotectionismwasmainlyinterpretedasanactofeconomicfolly;itscloseconnectionwiththetransitionfromfreecompetitiontomonopolisticcontrolhasasyetscarcelybeenrealisedby“bourgeois”economists.Theimperialistrivalryofcapitalistpowershasmainlybeenexplainedinpurelypoliticalterms,theconnectionbetweenimperialistrivalryandthefightformonopolisticcontrolscarcelybeingrealised.Itwasverygenerallyheldamong“bourgeois”economistsbothatthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturyandintheyearsprecedingI929,thattheeconomicstabilityofCapitalismwasincreasingandthatbusinessfluctuationswerebecominglessandlessintense.ThustheMarxianclaimthat“bourgeois”economistsfailedtograspthefundamentaltendenciesoftheevolutionoftheCapitalistsystemprovestobetrue.Theyeitherdeniedtheexistenceofthesetendenciesoriftheytookaccountofthemtheyneversucceededinexplainingthembyaconsistenttheoryofeconomicevolution,buteffectivelyofferednomorethanahistoricaldescription.Ontheotherhand,Marxianeconomicsmustbeadmittedtohaveanticipatedthesetendenciescorrectly,andtohavedevelopedatheorywhichinvestigatesthecausalmechanismofthisevolutionandthusshowsitsinevitability.
MARXIANECONOMICSANDMODERNECONOMICTHEORYIgr
Itmaybecontended,however,thatthelackofunderstandingofthebasicphenomenaoftheevolutionofCapitalismbytheprofessionaleconomistswasnotafailureoftheirscience,butratherapersonalfailureduetotheirmiddle-classsocialallegiance.Theycertainlycouldnotbeexpectedtolookwithfavouronatheoryofevolutionwhichdrawstheconclusionthatthemiddle-classwillbewipedoutintheprocessofevolution.Ifthiswerethecase,itwouldhavebeenan“errorartificis”ratherthanan“errorartis”,thepsychologicalgroundsofwhichareeasilyexplained.Thereare,however,reasonswhichseemtosuggestthatthefailureismorethanapurelypersonaloneandthatsome“errorartis”isinvolved.Inordertodisplaythisletusimaginetwopersons:onewhohaslearnedhiseconomicsonlyfromtheAustrianSchool,ParetoandMarshall,withouteverhavingseenorevenheardasentenceofMarxorhisdisciples;theotheronewho,onthecontrary,knowshiseconomicsexclusivelyfromMarxandtheMarxistsanddoesnotevensuspectthattheremayhavebeeneconomistsoutsidetheMarxistSchool.WhichofthetwowillbeabletoaccountbetterforthefundamentaltendenciesoftheevolutionofCapitalism?Toputthequestionistoanswerit.
ButthissuperiorityofMarxianeconomicsisonlyapartialone.TherearesomeproblemsbeforewhichMarxianeconomicsisquitepowerless,while“bourgeois”economicssolvesthemeasily.WhatcanMarxianeconomicssayaboutmonopolyprices?Whathasittosayonthefundamentalproblemsofmonetaryandcredittheory?Whatapparatushasittoofferforanalysingtheincidenceofatax,ortheeffectofacertaintechnicalinnovationonwages?And(ironyofFate!)whatcanMarxianeconomicscontributetotheproblemoftheoptimumdistributionofproductiveresourcesinasocialisteconomy? ClearlytherelativemeritsofMarxianeconomicsandofmodern“bourgeois”economictheorybelongtodifferent“ranges”.1Marxianeconomicscanworktheeconomicevolutionofcapitalistsocietyintoaconsistenttheoryfromwhichitsnecessityisdeduced,while“bourgeois”economistsgetnofurtherthanmerehistoricaldescription.Ontheotherhand,“"bourgeois”economicsisabletograspthephenomenaoftheevery-daylifeofacapitalisteconomyinamannerthatisfarsuperiortoanythingtheMarxistscanproduce.1Further,theanticipationswhichcanbededucedfromthetwotypesofeconomictheoryrefertoadifferentrangeoftime.IfpeoplewanttoanticipatethedevelopmentofCapitalismoveralongperiodaknowledgeofMarxisamuchmoreeffectivestartingpointthanaknowledgeofWieser,Boehm-Bawerk,ParetoorevenMarshall(thoughthelast-namedisinthisrespectmuchsuperior).
1Thisdifferenceisconnected,ofcourse,withtherespectivesocialfunctionsof"bourgeois"andMarxianeconomics.Thefirsthastoprovideascientificbasisforrationalmeasurestobetakeninthecurrentadministrationofthecapitalisteconomy(monetaryandcreditpolicy,tariffs,localisation,monopolyprices,etc.),thesocialfunctionofthelatterhasbeentoprovideascientificbasisforlongrangeanticipationsguidingtherationalactivityofarevolutionarymovementdirectedagainsttheveryinstitutionalfoundationsofthecapitalistsystem.Butinprovidingascientificbasisforthecurrentadministrationofthecapitalisteconomy“bourgeois”economicshasdevelopedatheoryofequilibriumwhichcanalsoserveasabasisforthecurrentadministrationofasocialisteconomy.'ItisobviousthatMarshallianeconomicsoffersmoreforthecurrentadministrationoftheeconomicsystemofSovietRussiathanMarxianeconomicsdoes,thoughthelatterissurelythemoreeffectivebasisforanticipatingthefutureofCapitalism.Insofar,moderneconomictheory,inspiteofitsundoubted"bourgeois"origin,hasauniversalsignificance.
I92THEREVIEWOFECONOMICSTUDIES
ButMarxianeconomicswouldbeapoorbasisforrunningacentralbankoranticipatingtheeffectsofachangeintherateofdiscount.
3.ThedifferencebetweentheexplanatoryvalueofMarxianand“bourgeois”economicsrespectivelyiseasilyaccountedforiftheessentialfeaturesofmoderneconomictheoryarerecalled.EconomictheoryasdevelopedbytheAustrian,MarshallianandLausanneschoolsisessentiallyastatictheoryofeconomicequilibriumanalysingtheeconomicprocessunderasystemofconstantdataandthemechanismbywhichpricesandquantitiesproducedadjustthemselvestochangesinthesedata.Thedatathemselves,whicharepsychological(thepreferencescalesoftheconsumers),technical(theproductionfunctions),andinstitutional(theformsanddistributionofpropertyofthefactorsofproduction,themonetaryandbankingsystem,etc.)areregardedasoutsidethescopeofeconomictheory.Thestudyofthedataisamatterofdescriptiveandstatisticalinvestigation,thestudyofchangesinthedataistheprovinceofeconomichistory.Ifthereareany“l(fā)aws”discoverableinthechangeofdata,theirstudyisoutsidetherangeofeconomictheory.Further,theinstitutionaldataofthetheoryarenotspecified.Insofarasthetheoryofeconomicequilibriumismerelyatheoryofdistributionofscarceresourcesbetweendifferentusesitdoesnotneedanyinstitutionaldataatall,fortherelevantconsiderationscanbededucedfromtheexampleofRobinsonCrusoe.Insofareconomicsisnotevenasocialscience.Wheneconomictheoryisconcernedwiththepricingprocess,thespecificationofinstitutionaldataisverygeneral.Allthatisassumedistheexistenceoftheinstitutionsnecessaryforthefunctioningofanexchangeeconomy.Buttheconsequencesoftheadditionalinstitutional1datumwhichdistinguishesCapitalismfromotherformsofexchangeeconomy,i.e.theexistenceofaclassofpeoplewhodonotpossessanymeansofproduction,isscarcelyexamined.
Now,Marxianeconomicsisdistinguishedbymakingthespecificationofthisadditionalinstitutionaldatumtheverycorner-stoneofitsanalysis,thusdiscoveringthecluetothepeculiarityoftheCapitalistsystembywhichitdiffersfromotherformsofexchange-economy.Anothercharacter-isticfeatureofMarxianeconomics(whichwillbeshowntobecloselyconnectedwiththeformerone),isthatitprovidesnotonlyatheoryofeconomicequili-brium,butalsoatheoryofeconomicevolution.Formodern“bourgeois”economicstheproblemofeconomicevolutionbelongsnottoeconomictheorybuttoeconomichistory.Thestudyofchangesinthedataoftheeconomicsystemisregardedasbeingbeyondthescopeofeconomictheory:forthesechangesareconsideredtobefromtheeconomists'pointofviewacci-dental,notresultsoftheeconomicprocess.2Inoppositiontothispoint
1BycallingthefactofdivisionofsocietyintoproletariansandownersofmeansofproductionaninstitutionaldatumIdonotmeantoimplythatitisimposedbylaw.Itmightbebetter,perhaps,todistinguishbetweeninstitutionaldata,resultingfromlegalinstitutions,andothertypesofsociologicaldatawhicharenotexpressedintheformoflegalinstitutions,butastheterm institutional"isusedgenerallyinaverybroadsensethereisnoneedtomakesuchdistinctionforthepurposeofthispaper.
2AisoH.L.Moore'stheoryofmovingequilibriumexplainsonlythereactionoftheeconomicsystemtoagivencontinuouschangeofdata.Thechangeofdataitselfisdeterminedstatisticallybutisnotanobjectoftheoreticalanalysis.Thesameistrueofthe“dynamic”theorieswhichdeducethenecessityoffluctuationsfromtimelagsinadjustingsupplytochangesinprice
13Vol.2
MARXIANECONOMICSANDMODERNECONOMICTHEORYI93
ofview,Marxianeconomicsprovidesfurtheratheoryofeconomicevolution.1
TheMarxiantheoryofeconomicevolutionisbasedonthecontentionthatitispossible,incertaincircumstances,todeducethenecessityfor,andalsothedirectionofacertainchangeofeconomicdata,andthatsuchachangefollows,inaparticularsense,fromtheverymechanismoftheeconomicprocessincapitalistsociety.Whatthismechanismisandwhattheterm“necessity”meansinthisconnectionwillbeseenlater;hereitissufficienttomentionthatthefundamentalchangeindataoccursinproduction(achangeoftheproductionfunction)andthatthe“necessity”ofsuchchangecanbededucedonlyundertheinstitutionalset-upspecifictoCapitalism.Thusa“l(fā)awofdevelopment”oftheCapitalistsystemisestablished.HencetheanticipationofthefuturecourseofeventsdeducedfromtheMarxiantheoryisnotamechanicalextra-polationofapurelyempiricaltrend,butananticipationbasedontherecognitionofalawofdevelopmentandis,withcertainreservations,notlessstringentthanananticipationbasedonthestatictheoryofeconomicequilibriumsuchas,forinstance,theanticipationthatariseinpriceleads,undercertaincircumstances,toadeclineoftheamountofacommoditydemanded.
4.Theeconomistwhosehorizondoesnotextendbeyondthelimitsofapurelystatictheoryofequilibriumusuallydeniesthepossibilityofatheoryofeconomicevolution.Heistoomuchaccustomedtoseeintheevolutionofwhatheregardsasthepuredataofhisscienceacertainkindof“accident”whichmaybedescribedbythehistorianandstatisticianbutwhichcannotbeaccountedforcausally,atanyratenotbyeconomictheory,Hisargumentisingeneralthatthephenomenaaretoocomplicatedtobecapableoftheoreticalformulation,i.e.tobeaccountedforbyonesingleprinciple(orafewprinciples).Hecontendsthatinthestudyofeconomicevolutionsomanyfactorsmustbetakenintoaccountthateconomicevolutioncanvirtuallyonlybedescribedhistoricallyandcannotbeforcedintothepatternofanoversimplified(andthereforewrong)theory.2However,thisargumentisscarcelyconvincing,itistoomuchlikethatputforwardbythehistoricalschoolagainstthepossi-bilityofevenstaticeconomictheory.Thepricingproblem,sothehistoricalandpurelyinstitutionalisteconomistargues,ismuchtoocomplicatedtobeexplainedbyonesingleprinciple(marginalutility),butshouldratherbedescribedhistoricallyandstatisticallysoastotakedueaccountofallthefactorsinfuencingthepriceofacommodity.Andsuchfactorsare,besidesutility,thecostofproduction,relativescarcity,thecostoftransportation,theextenttowhichthecommodityisimportedorexported,itsquality,theclimateifthecommodityisanarticleofclothing,etc.,etc.3Howcrazy,one
Thesetheoriesdeducetheimpossibilityofanequilibriumincertaincasesfromtheverynatureoftheadjustmentmechanism,buttheycannotdeducetheoreticallythechangesofdataresponsibleforthetrendonwhichthefluctuationsduetotheprocessofadjustmentaresuperimposed.
1ThedifferencebetweenatheoryofeconomicevolutionandamerehistoricalaccountofitisexcellentlyexplainedinChapterIIofSchumpeter'sTheoryofEcomomicDevelopment(Englishtranslation.Cambridge,Mass.,I934).SchumpeteristheonlyeconomistoutsidetheMarxistcampwhohasformulatedatheoryofeconomicevolution.However,thecloseconnectionofhistheorywithMarxianideasisobvious
Thesametypeofargumentisgenerallyraisedagainstthetheoryofhistoricalmaterialism
which3Ieftofnairtmittlwteiitrichipolc.tuallymaintainedthatthe
priceleveldependsonexactlyI2factors.FromhisenumerationofthesefactorsIhappen
I94THEREVIEWOFECONOMICSTUDIES
mightconcludeonthistypeofargument,toexplainthecomplicatedresultofsomanycausesbyonesingleprinciplesuchasmarginalutility.
Anotherargumentisthatevenifatheoryofeconomicevolutionisinprinciplepossibleitdoesnotbelongtothefieldofeconomics.Ifbythisitismeantthatthetheoryofeconomicevolutionrequiresadditionalassumptionsbeyondthosecontainedinthetheoryofeconomicequilibriumthisisobvious,forifthetheoryofeconomicequilibriumalreadycontainedtheseassumptionsitwoulddeduceaprocessofevolutioninsteadofastateofequilibrium.Whether,however,thedeductionofthenecessityforachangeofcertaindatafromcertainprinciplesiscalledeconomictheoryornotismerelyamatterofterminology."Itshouldbenoted,however,thatinMarxiantheorythischangeofdataisdeducedfromtheprincipleofprofitmaximisationwhichisatthebasisofthetheoryofeconomicequilibriumandthatthephenomenaconnectedwithitwereregardedbytheclassicaleconomistsasbelongingtothetraditionallyestablishedbodyofeconomictheory.Henceatheoryofeconomicevolutionexplainingcertainchangesofdataasresultingfrom“within”theeconomicprocessincapitalistsocietymaydulybeincludedinthescienceofeconomics.
5.IhavepointedoutthattherealsourceofthesuperiorityofMarxianeconomicsisinthefieldofexplainingandanticipatingaprocessofeconomicevolution.ItisnotthespecificeconomicconceptsusedbyMarx,butthedefinitespecificationoftheinstitutionalframeworkinwhichtheeconomicprocessgoesonincapitalistsocietythatmakesitpossibletoestablishatheoryofeconomicevolutiondifferentfrommerehistoricaldescription.MostorthodoxMarxists,however,believethattheirsuperiorityinunderstandingtheevolutionofCapitalismisduetotheeconomicconceptswithwhichMarxworked,i.e.tohisusingthelabourtheoryofvalue.Theythinkthattheabandonmentoftheclassicallabourtheoryofvalueinfavourofthetheoryofmarginalutilityisresponsibleforthefailureof“bourgeois”economicstoexplainthefundamentalphenomenaofcapitalistevolution.Thattheyarewrongcanbeeasilyshownbyconsideringtheeconomicmeaningofthelabourtheoryofvalue.Itisnothingbutastatictheoryofgeneraleconomicequi-librium.Inanindividualisticexhangeeconomy,basedondivisionoflabour,inwhichthereisnocentralauthoritytodirectwhichcommodities,andinwhatquantities,aretobeproduced,theproblemissolvedautomaticallybythefactthatcompetitionenforcessuchadistributionofproductiveresourcesbetweenthevariousindustriesthatpricesareproportionaltotheamountoflabournecessaryforproducingtherespectivecommodities(thesebeingthe“naturalprices”ofclassicaleconomics).Inessencethisisasstaticasthemoderntheoryofeconomicequilibrium,foritexplainspriceandproductionequilibriumonlyundertheassumptionofcertaindata(i.e.agivenamountoflaboursuchasisnecessarytoproduceacommodity—anamountdeterminedbythetechniqueofproduction).Noristhistheorybasedonmorespecialisedinstitutionaltoremember:theconfidencepeoplehaveinthenationalcurrency,whetherthenationalbudgetisbalancedornot,thebalanceofforeigntrade,thesizeofagriculturalcrops(andthusindirecclyrainfall).Theratioofthevolumeofmonetaryandcreditcirculationtothevolumeoftradeherecognisedasomeofthefactors,ofcourse,buthowwrong,heargued,tothinkofitastheprincipleexplainingthepricelevel
13*
MARXIANECONOMICSANDMODERNECONOMICTHEORYI95
assumptionsthanthemoderntheoryofeconomicequilibrium;itholdsnotonlyinacapitalisteconomy,butinanyexchangeeconomyinwhichthereisfreecompetition.1Tobeexact,however,itreallyholdspreciselyonlyinanon-capitalisticexchange-economyofsmallproducerseachofwhomownshisownmeansofproduction(anexchangeeconomycomposedofsmallself--workingartisansandpeasantfarmers,forinstance;Marxcallsit“einfacheWarenproduktion”).2Inacapitalisteconomyitrequires,asMarxhasshownhimselfinthethirdvolumeofDasKapital,certainmodificationsduetodifferencesintheorganiccompositionofcapital(i.e.theratioofthecapitalinvestedincapitalgoodstothecapitalinvestedinpaymentofwages)indifferentindustries.Thusthelabourtheoryofvaluehasnoqualitieswhichwouldmakeit,fromtheMarxistpointofview,superiortothemodernmoreelaboratetheoryofeconomicequilibrium.3Itisonlyamoreprimitiveformofthelatter,restrictedtothenarrowfieldofpurecompetitionandevennotwithoutitslimitationsinthisfield.4Further,itsmostrelevantstatement
(i.e.theequalityofpricetoaveragecostplus"normal"profit)isincludedinthemoderntheoryofeconomicequilibrium.ThusthelabourtheoryofvaluecannotpossiblybethesourceofthesuperiorityofMarxianover“bourgeois”economicsinexplainingthephenomenaofeconomicevolution.Infact,the
1Cf.forinstance,DasKapital,vol.I,p.I32(zthed.Hamburg,Meissner,I9I4).Cf.DasKapital,vol.IIf,r,p.I54seg.(4thed.Hamburg,Meissner,I9I9)
ofImperfectCompetition,p.28Iseg.)defineexploitationoftheworkerasoccurringwhenhegets
8IntheMarxiansystemthelabourtheoryofvaluesservesalsotodemonstratetheexploita-tionoftheworkingclassunderCapitalism,i.e.thedifferencebetweenthepersonaldistributionofincomeinacapitalisteconomyandinan“einfacheWarenproduktion”ItisthisdeductionfromthelabourtheoryofvaluewhichmakestheorthodoxMarxiststicktoit.Butthesamefactofexploitationcanalsobededucedwithoutthehelpofthelabourtheoryofvalue.Alsowithoutit,itisobviousthatthepersonaldistributionofincomeinacapitalisteconomyisdifferentfromthatinan“"einfacheWarenproduktion”(orinasocialisteconomybasedonequalitarianprinciples,inwhichthedistributionofincomewouldbesubstantiallythesameasinan"einfacheWaren-duktion"),forprofit,interestandrentcanobviouslybethepersonalincomeofaseparateclassofpeopleonlyinacapitalisteconomy.Ifinterestisexplainedbyt
溫馨提示
- 1. 本站所有資源如無特殊說明,都需要本地電腦安裝OFFICE2007和PDF閱讀器。圖紙軟件為CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.壓縮文件請下載最新的WinRAR軟件解壓。
- 2. 本站的文檔不包含任何第三方提供的附件圖紙等,如果需要附件,請聯(lián)系上傳者。文件的所有權(quán)益歸上傳用戶所有。
- 3. 本站RAR壓縮包中若帶圖紙,網(wǎng)頁內(nèi)容里面會有圖紙預(yù)覽,若沒有圖紙預(yù)覽就沒有圖紙。
- 4. 未經(jīng)權(quán)益所有人同意不得將文件中的內(nèi)容挪作商業(yè)或盈利用途。
- 5. 人人文庫網(wǎng)僅提供信息存儲空間,僅對用戶上傳內(nèi)容的表現(xiàn)方式做保護(hù)處理,對用戶上傳分享的文檔內(nèi)容本身不做任何修改或編輯,并不能對任何下載內(nèi)容負(fù)責(zé)。
- 6. 下載文件中如有侵權(quán)或不適當(dāng)內(nèi)容,請與我們聯(lián)系,我們立即糾正。
- 7. 本站不保證下載資源的準(zhǔn)確性、安全性和完整性, 同時也不承擔(dān)用戶因使用這些下載資源對自己和他人造成任何形式的傷害或損失。
最新文檔
- 新銷售員培訓(xùn)計劃
- 2024年食品質(zhì)檢員考試前沿動態(tài)試題及答案
- 建設(shè)碳庫面試題及答案
- 汽車表面涂料養(yǎng)護(hù)與維護(hù)常識試題及答案
- 2024美容師考試完成自我評估的重要性試題及答案
- 2024年汽車檢測儀器使用試題及答案
- 考前沖刺汽車維修工考試試題及答案要點
- 福建省福州市福清市高中聯(lián)合體2022-2023學(xué)年高一下學(xué)期期中生物試題(含答案)
- 2024年寵物營養(yǎng)測試難點及試題及答案
- 寵物自然飲食的趨勢分析試題及答案
- 2024年度-小學(xué)語文教師經(jīng)驗交流
- 種子執(zhí)法知識培訓(xùn)課件
- 部編小語四下《白鵝》文學(xué)閱讀與創(chuàng)意表達(dá)學(xué)習(xí)任務(wù)群教學(xué)設(shè)計
- 小學(xué)一年級數(shù)學(xué)-100以內(nèi)加減法口算填空題(含答案)
- 化工總控工(高級工)理論知識考試題庫附答案
- Do you have a dream瘋狂動物城英文版
- 中醫(yī)給藥護(hù)理課件
- 銷售人員財務(wù)知識培訓(xùn)課件
- 采購需求預(yù)測與物料計劃
- 第二章 新農(nóng)藥研究開發(fā)的基本思路、途徑和方法課件
- GB/T 4303-2023船用救生衣
評論
0/150
提交評論