Distribution Theory in Marx and in Kalecki.

Steindl, Josef

Bibliographic data

Works

Document type:: Works

Collection:: Josef Steindl Collection

Title:: Distribution Theory in Marx and in Kalecki.

Author:: Steindl, Josef

Scope:: Typoskript, 3 Blätter, 4 beschriebene Seiten, mit zahlreichen eigenhändigen Korrekturen und Ergänzungen

Year of publication:: ohne Datum

Description:: Verteilungstheorie bei Kalecki und Unterschiede zur marxschen Verteilungstheorie, vor allem in Bezug auf Surplus (Mehrprodukt) und Monopol.

Note:: Unveröffentlichtes Typoskript.

Topic:: Economic history,economic theory,current developments

JEL Classification:: E11 [General Aggregative Models: Marxian, Sraffian, Kaleckian]

Shelfmark:: S/M.11.1

Access:: Free access

Distribution Theory in Marx and in Kalecki. OW- IQ70) Michal Kalecki very much shared the critical attitude of Marx in relation to the capitalist system. His reading of Marx in his student days strongly influenced his outlook. Moreover the starting point of his life-work in economics- 'U&&Txh'C&*£' which paralleled and anticipated the work of Keynes - was the department scheme of Marx (Capital Vol II). Yet his views on distribution are widely different from those of Marx. In his view the surplus is formed on the markets of commodities and it is based on Hbiqax elements (trV. o,-opsC^ i } Cm TXtifa-u/S of monopoly, which are different in strength but basically ubiquitous in capitalism. By contrast Marx in his explanation of the surplus declines to take into account monopoly as a basic factor; his aim in the contrarary is to show that the surplus must arise (also) in an economy fully competitive on the markets for commodities. And, in the traditions of the classics to which he adhered in this respect, competiti/on implied free entry and free mobility of capital This after all was necessary to prove the equalisation of the profit rate which played such a large role in the theoretical arguments concerning the theory of value. Why should Marx have formulated his problem in this stringent way, making it harder to prove his case? I think the reasons are not far to seek: If he had rested his case to any extent on monopoly he would have risked erasing the dividing line between himself and a kind of radical liberal ideology which he did not share at all.

Works

Cite and reuse

Works

Image

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation