Let's not talk about the first hypothesis. This part is the same as Adam Smith's part.
The second hypothesis blames the non-productive classes directly. The monks, the landlords and the bureaucrats eat too much and leave too little for the capitalists to produce value. The existence of these parasites directly affects the development of the state. Ricardo almost pointed at the monks, the landlords and the bureaucrats in the nose and scolded them for ruining the state.
After Marx the labour theory of value went out of fashion in the orthodox school. It was clear that the labour of the workers was no less than that of the capitalists. Why did the capitalists get so much and the workers so little? The orthodox school had to uphold the orthodox class. The orthodox class was now the bourgeoisie, so the labour theory of value had to give way.
At this time, the marginal utility theory took the leading position in the Steadfastness school. Everything is scarce, everything produces value, and the scarcer it is, the more valuable it is. The capital supplied by the capitalists is scarce, so the capitalists are entitled to the lion's share. The problem is that the return on capital seems to be that the more capital there is, the better the return on capital per unit. That seems to contradict scarcity. The marginal utility theory was now evasive.
Keynes's theory, in a nutshell, was that capital was not omnipotent and needed the help of the bureaucrats to step in and perfect it. This was a salvation for the bureaucrats. So the vast majority of bureaucrats really liked Keynesianism.
The bureaucrats liked Keynesianism, the power of capital did not. Friedman once again stepped forward to vouch for the capitalists. The capitalists took care of everything, the bureaucrats had little to do with it. The government provided enough money every year for economic development and that was it. As the saying goes, "Everyone sit inside and listen to this old servant's arrangements." [1]
The omnipotence of the market and freedom of choice was the theoretical basis of the majority economics of economics. What would the reader think if he were to tell them that the capitalists could take care of everything?
The commonality of the two schools was that neither admitted the labour theory of value, and the individuality was that the society was in the best hands.
Among the mainstream schools of economics, there were only these two schools that were ranked first and second. If the bureaucrats were a little stronger, Keynesianism was popular. If the power of capital was a little stronger, Friedman's currency school was popular. Within the government, Keynesianism always prevailed. If the influence of capital among the people was great, naturally the currency school prevailed.
Whether the market was really efficient and what value was created depended on who explained it. Speaking of which, did anyone really care about these things?
What about the labourers? Did anyone care? Have you seen The Matrix? The workers were the batteries. All he had to do was work hard and provide a stable electric current. He saw what the mother wanted him to see and heard what the mother wanted him to hear. No matter who was in power, they would be happy. If they admit that they are not happy, it means that they do not have a correct understanding of the maternal nature of the mother. In that case, there will be two forces representing their happiness. In addition, people who think they are unhappy can have their own thoughts, but they are not allowed to say it. If he dared to speak too much, he would have to be careful of Agent Smith's visit.
If you were serious, you would lose.
(Li Fuguo, a powerful official in the Tang Dynasty lecturing the emperor)
Lutheran Economics (1.3) — — The Beginning (The Origin of the Evil Cult)
Reprint ▼
Tags:
Finance and economics
Adam Smith's theory contained two basic assumptions. The first was the labor theory of value, and the second was the market efficiency theory. Simply put, labor created value, and the market automatically regulated production. In Ricardo's era, there were constant economic crises. Therefore, Ricardo's theory recognized the labor theory of value and did not recognize the market efficiency theory. He believed that the market may have unreasonable structure, and the imbalance between supply and demand caused chaos. In Marx's era, the feudal landlord class had lost control of the economy, and the main social contradiction was concentrated between the workers and the capitalists. Therefore, Marx wrote Capital. The capitalists exploited the workers, and the workers and the capitalists were enemies of each other.
For the bourgeois economists, things were very awkward. If the labor theory of value was recognized, it would undoubtedly lead to the conclusion that the capitalists exploited the workers. If the labor theory of value was not recognized, value could not be determined. A concept without value was like a concept without power in physics. The entire economics would lose its final foothold. At this time, a new theory of value was needed to replace the labor theory of value. This was the historical background of the marginal utility theory of value. These economists were the neoclassical economists, also known as vulgar economists.
Marx recognized the labor theory of value, did not recognize the market efficiency, and proposed the eventual collapse of capitalism. According to Marx's theory, the source of original capital was robbery, theft, drug trafficking, fraud, slave trafficking, collusion with officials and businessmen, embezzlement of public funds, and not the accumulation of thrift. Under the capitalist system, capital severely exploited the labor force, which eventually led to a serious division between the rich and the poor. The workers became the slaves of capital. In addition to the workers, a large number of the petty bourgeoisie would eventually go bankrupt and become Luther. The few at the top of the society who controlled the amazing wealth would eventually become isolated and isolated. Most of the workers were both the exploited and the main consumers. The workers were exploited, and the corresponding consumption capacity was insufficient, so the capitalist production process could not be completed smoothly. There would be periodic economic crises, a large number of workers would lose their jobs, and a large number of products would have no market, eventually leading to the collapse of the capitalist system. The core content of the three volumes of Capital was these three points.
The vulgar economists did not recognize the labor theory of value, but recognized the market efficiency, and proposed that all supply and demand could be perfectly and automatically adjusted. In other words, the system of capitalism and the free market was always healthy and had a long life. According to their view, there was no involuntary unemployment in society, and all unemployment was caused by the workers' unwillingness to accept more reasonable (lower) wages. There was no excess production in society, and the lack of a market for all products was the result of the producers' lack of adequate information. The reason for being at the top of the society was not that they controlled capital, had a stronger distribution power, and could seek advantages and avoid disadvantages, but that they were smart, brave, intelligent, and good at taking risks, seeing business opportunities that others could not see, and making decisions that others did not dare to make. Because they denied the power of capital, they believed that vulgar economics was immortal, and that every slave had the opportunity to become a general.
It could be clearly seen that both political economy and Western economics originated from Smith's theory. They were two flowers on the same vine: the branch that recognized the labor theory of value, but did not recognize the market efficiency theory, developed into Marxist political economy; the branch that recognized the market efficiency theory, but did not recognize the labor theory of value, developed into Western economics.
The class nature of the two economic theories of value was very obvious. The ultimate goal of the debate on the theory of value was to prove whether it was reasonable to obtain the majority share of products, and what the ultimate fate of the capitalist economic system was.
The labor theory of value was based on the idea that labor created value, and nothing else could create value, and value came from the labor of the workers. The marginal utility theory was based on the idea that things could create value in themselves, such as land, factories, machines, livestock, and money could create value.
According to the labor theory of value, capitalists' exploitation was unavoidable. Although capitalists also participated in the social production process, there was no necessary connection between the amount of labor they received and the amount of labor they worked. The income of managing a factory of 100 people and managing a factory of 10000 people might be a hundred times different, but the energy invested was similar. In fact, because small factories were subject to various conditions, managers often invested more energy.
According to the marginal utility theory of value, any factor of production could be bought from the market. Capitalists put in various factors, organized production, and inevitably had the right to all the benefits. According to the stable view, everything could create value. These things belong to me, I am the owner of property rights, and I have the right to ask for a part of the product, and often a crucial part.
According to Luther's view, labor created value, and then it was distributed according to ownership. This was the initial distribution. Farmers worked the land, and landlords collected rent. Landlords did not need to work the land, but farmers worked the land of the landlords, and had to pay rent to the landlords. The farmers had a good harvest, and the landlords' rent also increased. In the case of a fixed total harvest, the farmers' living situation was completely dependent on the landlords' rent, which was the monopoly of land ownership. Therefore, ownership was not the factor that created value, but the basis for exploitation.
Ownership was the basis for the creation of value in the production process, and the basis for the distribution requirements, which was the basis for the opposition of the two theories of value. According to the labor theory of value, these people relied on ownership to forcibly occupy the labor products produced by workers and production organizers. According to the marginal utility theory, landowners, usurers, and industrial capitalists were all providers of factors of production. It was important to note that most capitalists played two roles, both as participants in production and as exploiters. As their capital grew, the first identity gradually disappeared, and the second identity continued to strengthen. Small capitalists often had to participate in the labor themselves, while large capitalists lived like princes.
By extension, a question could be raised. Were landowners and usurers social producers or parasites? In Adam Smith's theory, these two types of people were clearly parasitic classes. But in the era of vulgar economics, these people were all beneficial to social production.
This was because in the early days of capitalism, land was monopolized in the hands of large landowners or feudal aristocrats, money was concentrated in the hands of usurers, and the economic power of capitalists was very weak. At this time, if the marginal utility theory was recognized, that "things" could create value, then landowners and usurers were undoubtedly the people who made the greatest contribution to society, and were also the people who were most qualified to receive the largest share. In that case, everyone would speculate in land, open pawnshops, and usurers, and there would be no future for capitalism. Similarly, there was the value of the labor of priests and bureaucrats. If the value of their labor was recognized, then the church or officialdom would become the masters of the economy, and most of the capitalists' results would have to support them. Therefore, at this time, the labor theory of value had to be emphasized, and it was productive labor that was beneficial to society. Landowners, usurers, priests, bureaucrats, and so on did not create value, and were all burdens to society. Capitalists directly organized and participated in labor, and were the class that made the greatest contribution to society. At this time, landowners said that land created value, usurers said that lending money created value, priests said that prayer created value, and bureaucrats said that the official economy created value. For capitalists, this was outrageous.
When capitalists sat firmly in the country, the contradictions between capitalists and landowners and usurers had weakened, and these people had lost the dominance of society, and the bureaucrats and priests had turned to serve capitalists. In contrast, with the development of capitalism, the working class was unprecedentedly strong in terms of quantity, quality, and organization, and became the direct opponent of capitalists. At this time, the marginal utility theory was needed to tell the world that it was natural for capitalists to receive the largest share. At this time, landowners and usurers were also tolerated to benefit from land rent and interest, and the labor of priests and bureaucrats became necessary and valuable labor in society.
Whether the bourgeoisie first insisted on the labor theory of value or later insisted on the marginal utility theory of value, the ultimate goal was to maximize the interests of the class. Society was changing, but the interests of the class were unchanged. The theory of value could be constantly adjusted according to the interests of the class, and the interests of the class were the fundamental basis of value. (One more word, the debate about the two theories of value could be extended. Can speculating in land and usurers create value? Can opening casinos and brothels enrich the country and the people? There were completely different explanations in the two theories of value. A more funny example was the joke about two economists eating dog poop. A and B each ate a portion of dog poop, thus creating a GDP of 100 million for the country.)
The final focus of the debate between the two factions was the development trend of capitalism. To put it simply, it was a question of whether capitalism was stable or not.
This article did not intend to delve into the labor theory of value. In fact, it did not make sense to delve into, debate, and distinguish the two theories of value. How could two opposing classes convince each other when it came to the creation of value and then the distribution of benefits? This kind of debate could only be a chicken talking to a duck. As mentioned earlier in this article, it could only be determined that a certain amount of products would be produced and distributed among the various classes. As for how to distribute and whether this distribution was reasonable, each class had different explanations.
This article tried to analyze why capitalism was unstable on the basis of Marx and what the consequences of this instability would be. It should be noted that in the process of analysis, this article did not use a lot of value analysis, but more analysis of the power of the two sides of the transaction, and the internal connection between aggregate supply and aggregate demand.
You've already exceeded your reading limit for today. If you want to read more, please log in.
Login
Select text and click 'Report' to let us know about any bad translation.
