Content area
Full text
Abstract: This article shows the following: (1) Marx has given a description of the relationship between industries, which is equivalent to Walras's theoretical version of input-output and to Leontief's empirical (monetary) input-output analysis. (2) Marx's version of general equilibrium theory is characterized by the attributes required for the formulation of the theoretical (abstract) model: the conditions for the existence of the general equilibrium state and simplified assumptions. His theory is characterized by different rates of profit; unemployment of primary factors with positive prices; unsold commodities and so on. Also, Marx's money theory, as well as Smith's and Walras's, is relevant to modern society. Moreover, Marx, as well as Walras, stated repeatedly that in reality equilibrium is never achieved; but he asserted that the study of equilibrium achievement is necessary for managing real economics, by revealing the nature of distortions of equilibrium states and treating them.
Key words: Smith; Marx; Walras; input-output; general equilibrium
1. Introduction
This article shows that (1) Marx has given a description of the relationship between industries (input-output (IO)); and (2) Marx's approach is characterized by the crucial attributes of general equilibrium theory (GET), despite the fact that Marx's contribution to GET and input-output analysis (IOA) is usually evaluated by the Reproduction Schemes (Simple and Extended), which were described by him in the second volume of Capital. Such an evaluation is common to scholars of both west and east. They emphasize that Marx has confined himself to two sectors (consumption and capital commodities) model, and he did not discuss an inter-industries model as in traditional IOA. In their works, they attempted to establish a connection between the Reproduction Schemes and standard IOA and reformulate the first in terms of the latter (Nemchinov 1964; Lange 1969; Brody 1970).
This article shows, however, that Marx has given a description of the relationship between industries, which is equivalent to Walras's theoretical version of IO (Walras 1954) and to Leontief's empirical (monetary) IOA (Leontief 1936, [1941] 1951; Davar 1994, 2013). Unfortunately, in this case, he also did not discuss many industries. But Marx has drawn a "picture" which is almost identical to IO in monetary terms. And furthermore, Marx's "language" in no way differs from it.
Yet despite the fact that Marx did not formulate...