论文部分内容阅读
马克思主义经济学家阿吉特.辛哈认为,斯拉法的标准商品仅仅适合于李嘉图不变的价值尺度的要求,但不是马克思转型问题的解;李嘉图和斯拉法的剥削概念也和马克思的剥削概念根本不同。斯拉法主义经济学家按照工资在净产出中的份额来说明剥削问题,和马克思从生产过程分析剥削问题有着本质区别。作为马克思主义经济学家,辛哈站在马克思主义的基本立场,其对剥削概念的说明是遵照马克思《资本论》原意的,对转型问题的分析也是符合马克思原意的。并且,同伊特韦尔的看法相反,辛哈认为不能把货币工资看作是给定的,而应该把实际工资看作是给定的。他对斯拉法关于李嘉图问题的说明也持肯定态度,并在一定程度上肯定了其标准体系和标准商品的科学价值。
According to Ajit Singh, a Marxist economist, Stilf’s standard goods are only suitable for Ricardo’s unchanged standard of value, but not the solution to Marx’s problem of transition. The concepts of Ricardo and Stilfa’s exploitation are also similar to Marx’s The concept of exploitation is fundamentally different. Srephath economists account for the problem of exploitation according to the share of wages in net output, which is essentially different from the analysis of exploitation by Marx from the production process. As a Marxist economist, Sinha stands in the basic position of Marxism. His explanation of the concept of exploitation follows the original intention of Marx’s “capitalism.” It is in line with Marx’s original intention to analyze the issue of transition. And, contrary to Ewe’s belief, Sinha does not think money wages can be given, but real wages should be given. He also took a positive attitude toward Sliff’s note on Ricardo’s problems and to some extent affirmed the scientific value of his standard system and standard goods.