Thanks for that Adam . Yes
Thanks for that Adam . Yes very interesting. I notice on the very first page Bukharin distinguishes Adam Smith’s subjective LTV from Marx’s objective version of the same characterising the latter as an extreme example of objectivism. Its a long peice so it will take some time to read through but it will be interesting to see what comments he comes up with on marginalist economics.
This question of how to allocate inputs under conditions of scarcity in proportion to the relative importance of end uses needing them is something that is preoccupying me just at the moment. I wonder if anyone here has any thoughts on the matter? We cannot just assume that in socialism the available supply of an input will be ample enough to satisfy every possible end use . We have to prioritise end uses in that case and allocate the input accordingly but how and in what proportions? Are we talking about some kind of cascading model of allocation – end use 1 gets is requirements fully met, end use 2 likewise and then, when the supply starts running out, end use 3’s requirements are partially met , while 4 and 5;’s are completely neglected. And so on and so forth.
Capitalism can, of course, fall back on the “equimarginal principle” to resolve this particular problem. But what about socialism? Might marginalist economics actually have something useful to say after all about the practical organisation of a non market socialist system? Hhmmm