DOCENTES
12
MEMORIAS DEL 1° CONGRESO
the distribution of income was limited to sectoral differences on its generation. (Graña, 2007) For Quesnay, the only really productive capital is that invested in agriculture, that is to say, the capital of the tenant farmer, he understands that this distinction is only applicable to him. From this also follows the annual turnover time of one part of the capital and the extended term (decennial) of the other. It is true that the physiocrats, in the course of their evolution, extend these distinctions to other kinds of capital, to industrial capital in general terms. (Marx, 1867, p. 148) The physiocrats rightly include the part of capital invested in wages among the annulled advances, as opposed to the primitives advances. On the other hand, they do not include as an integral part of the productive capital employed by the tenant of the land the labor power itself, but by the means of life supplied to the agricultural laborers (the maintenance of the workrnen, as A. Smith says). (Marx, 1867, p. 163)
Classics n the study of classical political economy, income distribution became a matter of special interest to society. Adam Smith (1776) identified land, labor and capital as the three factors of production and main contributors to the wealth of a nation. At the end of the classical tradition, John Stuart Mill (1848), departed from the ideas of previous classical economists and showed the clear difference between the two functions of the market: resource allocation and income distribution, arguing that the market can be efficient in the allocation of resources, but not in the distribution of income, so it is necessary for society to intervene. (Romero, 2014, pp. 57, 58)
Marxists In the critique of classical political economy, he is therefore correct when he emphasizes that the characteristic of accumulation process is the consumption of the surplus product by productive workers and not by unproductive people. But here also begins his error. A. Smith made it fashionable to define accumulation simply as
13
the consumption of the surplus product by productive workers and the capitalization of surplus value as its simple investment in labor power. Let us hear, for example, what Ricardo says: “It must be borne in mind that all the products of a country are consumed; but there is a great difference, the greatest that can be imagined, between them being consumed by those who reproduce other values or by those who reproduce none. (Marx, Capital Volume I, 1886, pp. 382-383) In short, the content of functional distribution in the Marxist vision is how much workers and capitalists appropriate of the total value created by them, as a result of the forms of utilization of labor power in a productive process that is based on the capitalist production of surplus value (absolute, relative or extraordinary) and that, therefore, necessarily involves a class struggle between workers and capitalists. (Graña, 2007)
Neoclassical The neoclassical theory, according to William Stanley Jevons, is based on the laws of human needs. It defines the market with two behavioral functions of the agents: the theory of the consumer (demand) and the producer (supply), each economic agent will make their respective decisions of spending their income optimally, the consumer maximizing the utility established by a set of combinations of goods and services determined by their individual preferences, subject to a budget constraint, aiming to maximize its respectively its utility, designating the price of each good or service. Similarly, the producer maximizes his profit, subject to the restrictions imposed by the income level or budget constraint and the markets for: labor, capital and technology, i.e., the marginal productivity of each factor determines the price of the factor and the maximization of profit. Now, what is the relation of all the above with income distribution? To answer this question, we must introduce ourselves a
