Openai/690e0c6e-a0a0-8008-a8d6-170f8b930892: Difference between revisions

''This conversation was exported from ChatGPT''<ref>{{cite web|title=Economists on Marx's view|url=https://chatgpt.com/share/690e0c6e-a0a0-8008-a8d6-170f8b930892|publisher=ChatGPT|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref>

=== - Position. In competitive markets with complete contracts and no frictions, each factor is paid its marginal product; voluntary exchange at market wages is therefore not exploitative in the Marxian sense. Marx’s labor-theory-of-value is seen as unnecessary for price/wage determination, and “surplus value” has no independent explanatory role. 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=2025-11-11}}</ref> ===

* Sources. Paul Samuelson’s classic formal engagement with Marxian exploitation and the transformation problem; N. Gregory Mankiw’s defense of marginal-product pay and “just deserts” (with many dissenters). Cooperative Individualism<ref>{{cite web|title=Cooperative Individualism|url=https://cooperative-individualism.org/samuelson-paul_understanding-the-marxian-notion-of-exploitation-1971-jun.pdf|publisher=Cooperative Individualism|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref>

=== - Position. Even without adopting Marx’s value theory, many modern economists argue real-world frictions and power can drive a wedge between pay and productivity—so “equal exchange” at the contract level can still mask extraction. Mechanisms include monopsony in labor markets, rising markups/market power, efficiency-wage discipline, and incomplete contracts. Annual Reviews<ref>{{cite web|title=Annual Reviews|url=https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-072823-030431|publisher=Annual Reviews|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> ===

* Evidence. - Monopsony: Higher labor-market concentration → lower posted wages. Reviews now treat monopsony as pervasive. NBER<ref>{{cite web|title=NBER|url=https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24147/revisions/w24147.rev0.pdf|publisher=nber.org|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Rising markups / superstar firms: Markups climbed sharply since ~1980; reallocation toward “superstar” high-markup firms depressed the aggregate labor share. OUP Academic<ref>{{cite web|title=OUP Academic|url=https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/561/5714769|publisher=OUP Academic|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Labor share trends: Global decline in labor’s income share since the 1980s; debate on what the residual (“factorless income”) really is—pure profits vs. measurement. OUP Academic<ref>{{cite web|title=OUP Academic|url=https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/129/1/61/1899422|publisher=OUP Academic|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Profit share: Some work finds both labor and capital shares fell, offset by a rise in pure profits, consistent with distributional shifts favoring owners of market power. UCLA Anderson School of Management<ref>{{cite web|title=UCLA Anderson School of Management|url=https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/documents/areas/fac/finance/Barkai_Simcha_DecliningLaborCapital.pdf|publisher=UCLA Anderson School of Management|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref>

=== - Position. Keep Marx’s core intuition—that workers create a surplus appropriated by owners—but rebuild the theory using general equilibrium/game-theoretic concepts (property relations, feasible alternative allocations). This separates “exploitation” from the labor-theory-of-value and makes it comparable across systems. Bibliovault<ref>{{cite web|title=Bibliovault|url=https://www.bibliovault.org/BV.book.epl?ISBN=9780674344402|publisher=bibliovault.org|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> ===

* Examples. John Roemer’s A General Theory of Exploitation and Class; more recent formal work (e.g., Veneziani/Yoshihara; surveys and teaching notes) that retain the rate of exploitation as an empirical/analytical object. Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_General_Theory_of_Exploitation_and_Class|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref>

=== - Position. Contracts are enforced within asymmetric power relations (monitoring, sanctions, exit threats). Even when trades are “voluntary,” the workplace is a site of control; exploitation is about power as much as prices. This overlaps with efficiency-wage models where unemployment disciplines workers. American Economic Association<ref>{{cite web|title=American Economic Association|url=https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fjep.7.1.83|publisher=American Economic Association|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> ===

* Sources. Bowles & Gintis on contested exchange and power in otherwise competitive economies. sites.santafe.edu<ref>{{cite web|title=sites.santafe.edu|url=https://sites.santafe.edu/~bowles/1992PPA.pdf|publisher=sites.santafe.edu|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref>

=== - Position. Long-run data show wealth/income concentrating at the top; whether or not one uses Marxian language, the outcomes look like a growing surplus captured by capital/market power. American Economic Association<ref>{{cite web|title=American Economic Association|url=https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fjep.34.4.3|publisher=American Economic Association|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> ===

* Sources. Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (r>g framework) and successors; Saez & Zucman’s distributional national accounts documenting the rise of top shares. Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref>

=== - 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=2025-11-11}}</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=2025-11-11}}</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=2025-11-11}}</ref>

# “Marginal-productivity theory and its critics” (Britannica) — provides an overview of how marginal productivity theory emerged to counter older value theories (including Marx’s). 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=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Key point: Under competitive conditions, workers are paid the marginal product of labour, so there is no systematic under-payment or “surplus extraction” in Marx’s sense. - Useful because it gives background on the mainstream view of factor payments.

# “What is Analytical Marxism? …” / “Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory” etc. — While this is in the analytical Marxist camp, it also highlights critiques of Marx’s value theory and shows the mainstream response. Social Science Computing Cooperative<ref>{{cite web|title=Social Science Computing Cooperative|url=https://www.sscc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/pages/wright/Published%20writing/IE-C8.pdf|publisher=Social Science Computing Cooperative|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Criticism: The labour-theory of value has internal tensions, problems of transformation (values → prices) and is seen by many economists as superseded or at least not necessary. Merion West<ref>{{cite web|title=Merion West|url=https://merionwest.com/2022/01/01/the-failed-attempt-to-rescue-marxs-labor-theory-of-value/|publisher=Merion West|date=2022-01-01|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Good for seeing where mainstream economics says: even if capitalism has problems, the precise mechanism of Marx (surplus value via LTV) is flawed.

# “Validity of Marxist critique” (Economics StackExchange) — A more accessible discussion of how economics forums view Marxian exploitation under competitive assumptions. Economics Stack Exchange<ref>{{cite web|title=Economics Stack Exchange|url=https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/50169/validity-of-marxist-critique|publisher=Economics Stack Exchange|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Useful for pedagogy: showing typical mainstream objections (“if workers are paid their product, where does surplus go?”). - The critique points out: if wages = value created, then no room for surplus appropriation; but if wages < value, the capitalist cannot pay other costs/invest etc.

# “Exploitation of labour? Classical monopsony power and labour’s share” (Brooks, Kaboski, Li & Qian) — empirical work showing how labour‐market monopsony (employer power) can reduce the labour share of income in China & India. NBER<ref>{{cite web|title=NBER|url=https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25660/w25660.pdf|publisher=nber.org|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Key result: “monopsony power substantially lowers labor’s share … by up to 11 percentage points in China and 13 pp in India.” NBER<ref>{{cite web|title=NBER|url=https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25660/w25660.pdf|publisher=nber.org|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Interpretation: Even if contractually equal (worker sells labour, capitalist pays wage), the wage may end up being below marginal product because the worker lacks alternative options → resembling Marx's “extraction” though lettered differently.

# “Monopsony in the U.S. labour market – Upjohn Research” — recent work documenting employer‐market power in labour markets. research.upjohn.org<ref>{{cite web|title=research.upjohn.org|url=https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=up_workingpapers|publisher=research.upjohn.org|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Supports the idea that formal contractual equality does not guarantee substantive equality of payment in realistic labour markets.

# “Marx, Marginalism, and the True Nature of Capitalism” (DeveconHub) — argues that Marx’s systemic concerns (average rate of surplus value, falling profit rate) differ from marginalist individual‐optimisation models, but the empirical trends (declining labour share, rising markups) can revive a Marx-like concern even within a modern framework. deveconhub.com<ref>{{cite web|title=deveconhub.com|url=https://deveconhub.com/marx-marginalism-and-the-true-nature-of-capitalism/|publisher=deveconhub.com|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Good for bridging Marx’s intuition with modern institutional issues of power, mark-ups, factor shares.

# **John Roemer – A General Theory of Exploitation and Class (1982) — one of the foundational works of analytical Marxism. Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_General_Theory_of_Exploitation_and_Class|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Roemer’s definition: exploitation ≠ simply “capitalist pays less than value of labour” in a LTV sense, but rather: a group is exploited if under feasible alternatives they would do better and their inferior outcome is causal to the structure of property/contract. sociopedia.co<ref>{{cite web|title=sociopedia.co|url=https://sociopedia.co/post/marxism-analytic-marxism|publisher=sociopedia.co|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - He rejects the necessity of the labour theory of value. Michael A. Lebowitz<ref>{{cite web|title=Michael A. Lebowitz|url=https://michaelalebowitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/1984-review-of-roemer.pdf|publisher=Michael A. Lebowitz|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - This means the formal equality of contract can be undermined because of property structure, bargaining asymmetries, exclusion from alternative endowments.

# “Analytical Marxism – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” — overview of this school of thought, its methods and critiques of traditional Marxist value theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<ref>{{cite web|title=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marxism-analytical/|publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Summarizes how analytical Marxists aim to build class/exploitation theory on micro-theoretic foundations, game theory, property rights.

# “The Structure and Justification of Exploitation Theory” (Turner) — A survey/critical piece on exploitation theories with roots in Roemer. Drake University<ref>{{cite web|title=Drake University|url=https://www.drake.edu/media/departmentsoffices/dussj/2006-2003documents/ExploitationTurner.pdf|publisher=Drake University|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Useful for seeing modern debates within analytical Marxism: when is an arrangement exploitative? what normative stance? etc.

# Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – “Exploitation” entry — discusses Marx’s account and how modern theorists interpret it. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<ref>{{cite web|title=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/|publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Emphasises: Marx’s claim that workers produce value above what they receive (wages) and the excess is appropriated by capitalists as surplus value. - Also covers debates about whether the labour theory of value is necessary for this.

# “Labour theory of value – ScienceDirect Topics” — a concise exposition of Marx’s value theory and how surplus-value arises from labour. ScienceDirect<ref>{{cite web|title=ScienceDirect|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/labor-theory-of-value|publisher=sciencedirect.com|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Good for understanding the original mechanism: value is socially necessary labour time, wage is labour power, difference = surplus value appropriated.

# “A Brief History, Scope, and Peculiarities of ‘Analytical Marxism’” — while about analytical Marxism, it points to how many neo/heterodox scholars seek to “rescue” aspects of Marx’s critique (value form, surplus value, class appropriation) even if they side-step controversies. SAGE Journals<ref>{{cite web|title=SAGE Journals|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0486613406293223|publisher=SAGE Journals|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref> - Points out that some heterodox economists continue to stress the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, immiseration thesis, etc. - See also “Immiseration Thesis” (Wikipedia) for the connection to labour share falling. Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immiseration_thesis|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-11}}</ref>