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
