Fred wrote:

> both of these orthodox versions are based on marginal
> productivity theory.

Hi Fred,

I'm puzzled by this.  Can you summarize quickly what you mean
specifically by "marginal productivity theory" or, at least, the part
of it you object?  Is it (1) the theory that there's a correspondence
between the marginal product (revenue) of an input and its market
price?  Or is it (2) the more basic notion that a quantitative
correspondence between outputs and productive inputs (means of
production and labor power) can be established in general?  How does
this theory (1 and/or 2) exclude the notion that distribution is
determined by the "surplus labor of workers"?

So you see where I'm coming from on this: I think 2 is self evident.
And I don't have a problem with 1 either, provided the levels of
abstraction are duly sorted out.  I don't see how 1 and/or 2 are
mutually exclusive of surplus value as the source of all non-labor or
property income.  I don't see how either 1 and/or 2 is incompatible
with class struggle and capitalist competition in the output and input
markets.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to