Editing Openai/690e0c6e-a0a0-8008-a8d6-170f8b930892 (section)

=== - Position. Many economists still reject Marx’s surplus-value mechanism and the labor-theory-of-value on theoretical grounds (transformation, aggregation, capital controversies), arguing competitive pricing/marginal productivity explain incomes better; others counter that those benchmarks aren’t descriptively valid in today’s concentrated, friction-ridden markets. JSTOR<ref>{{cite web|title=JSTOR|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2721866|publisher=jstor.org|access-date=2025-11-12}}</ref> ===

==== - If you assume frictionless competition: most economists say Marx’s mechanism is wrong—formal equality generally implies no exploitation. Encyclopedia Britannica<ref>{{cite web|title=Encyclopedia Britannica|url=https://www.britannica.com/money/wage/Marginal-productivity-theory-and-its-critics|publisher=Encyclopedia Britannica|access-date=2025-11-12}}</ref> ====
* If you look at modern evidence on power and institutions: many economists (including non-Marxists) see systematic gaps between pay and productivity (monopsony, markups, superstar firms, falling labor share)—broadly consistent with Marx’s diagnosis that “formal equality” can mask extraction, even if they use different models and language. OUP Academic<ref>{{cite web|title=OUP Academic|url=https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24147/revisions/w24147.rev0.pdf|publisher=OUP Academic|access-date=2025-11-12}}</ref>

If you’d like, I can tailor a short reading path (5–6 pieces) depending on whether you want the analytical-Marxist route, the monopsony/markups evidence, or the mainstream critiques.