奧斯卡◎朗格 馬克思主義經(jīng)濟學(xué)和現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟理論

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