Marx versus Walras on Labour Exchange Motohiro Okada Abstract: This paper compares Léon Walras’s and Marx’s thoughts on labour exchange, thereby illuminating the latter’s perspective that can lead to a forceful counterargument to the neoclassical principle of labour exchange, for which the former affords a foundation. Both Walras and Marx distinguish between labour ability as a factor of production and labour as its service, but exhibit a striking contrast in their explanations of the distinction. Walras’s distinction between ‘personal faculties’ and labour never attempts to re- veal the peculiarities of the relationship they share. Walras essentially equates the re- lationship between the two with that between non-human factors and their respective services by stripping the former of human elements. This not only allows labour ex- change to be incorporated into Walras’s general equilibrium system but also provides the groundwork for its neoclassical principle, which, on the basis of marginal theory, assumes work conditions to be determinable through the stylised market adjustment of the demand and supply of labour on each entrepreneur’s and worker’s maximisa- tion behaviour. In contrast, especially in his pre-Capital writings, Marx underlines the worker’s subjectivity in deciding her labour performance. This implies that the type and inten- sity of time-unit labour varies depending on the worker’s will and the constraints upon it. Accentuating the particular characteristics of the relationship between labour power and labour in this way, Marx’s arguments lead to the invalidation of the neo- classical principle of labour exchange and rationalise the intervention of socio-politi- cal factors represented by the labour-capital class struggle in the determination of work conditions. Thus, this study focuses on the potential of Marx’s labour power-la- bour distinction independent of his exploitation theory-the basis of a weighty refu- tation of the neoclassical system. JEL classification numbers: B 13, B 14. Walras’s views on labour exchange, and I Introduction thereby shed light on an aspect of Marx’s The objective of this study is to attempt a thinking that has received scant attention but comparison between Karl Marx’s and Léon can lead to a forceful counterargument to the The History of Economic Thought, Vol. 52, No. 2, 2011. Ⓒ The Japanese Society for the History of Eco- nomic Thought. OKADA: MARX VERSUS WALRAS ON LABOUR EXCHANGE 47 neoclassical economic doctrine. contemporary forerunners of the neoclassical Marx’s economics was formed through school are required because such investiga- his in-depth study of the classical school. His tions have lagged behind the vast enquiries value and exploitation theory, which consti- into the Marx-classical economist relation- tutes the kernel of his economic thought, is ship. purely a product of his criticisms of and in- On the basis of this viewpoint, this study heritances from the works of David Ricardo investigates the worth of Marx’s views on la- and other classical economists. Although, in bour exchange in comparison with those of contrast, the Marginal Revolution writings of Walras, who played a leading role in the William S. Jevons, Carl Menger, and Walras Marginal Revolution and originated the gen- appeared during his life, Marx died without eral equilibrium theory. I have chosen Wal- having an opportunity to learn neoclassical ras as Marx’s match from among numerous economics, which they pioneered. However, neoclassical economists not only for his im- even if Marx had had this knowledge, it may portance and contemporaneity with Marx but have made little impact on his thinking. It also because the two distinguish between la- seems fairly reasonable to imagine that Marx bour ability as a factor of production and la- would have swept the neoclassical doctrine bour as its service. The distinction between aside as a mere sophisticated version of ‘vul- labour power（ Arbeitskraft） and labour（ Ar- gar’ economics. beit）, with the criticism of the obscurity in However, it is an unshakable fact that ne- classical economists’ notion of this issue, un- oclassical economists advanced analytical derlies Marx’s exploitation theory. Yet the techniques and minuteness significantly from comparison between Marx’s arguments on the pre-marginalism ‘vulgar’ economists labour exchange, especially in his pre-Capi- whom Marx savaged, thus having built the tal writings, and Walras’s demonstrates that predominant theoretical system. So, to re- Marx’s labour power-labour distinction- evaluate Marx’s thought with due considera- quite independently of his concept of exploi- tion of the history of economics after his tation-has the potential for a weighty refu- death, we must investigate whether his argu- tation of the neoclassical rather than the clas- ments contain what may qualify as intrinsic sical system. criticisms of neoclassical economics. Long Disregarding factor-service relations pe- discussions on Marx’s value and exploitation culiar to labour exchange, Walras sees work theory, which has been widely recognised as conditions as determinable through the styl- representing Marxian conflicts with the neo- ised market adjustment of the demand and classical school, suggest that it is inadequate- supply of labour on each entrepreneur’s and ly qualified.1） Thus, comparative studies of worker’s maximisation behaviour. This intro- Marx’s and neoclassical economics from a duces the neoclassical manner of explaining broader perspective may be needed to reap- even labour exchange by the marginalism- praise Marx in the current situation. In his- based market theory. It may be called the torical research, it seems that close and wide- neoclassical principle of labour exchange.2） ranging comparisons between Marx and his Recognising the particular characteristics of 48 経済学史研究 52 巻 2 号 the relationship between labour power and II Walras on Labour Exchange labour in contrast to that between non-human factors and their respective services, Marx’s Walras’s theory of labour exchange is incor- views can reveal the groundlessness of the porated into his general equilibrium system neoclassical principle, and rationalise the in- in Elements of Pure Economics. In Part IV of tervention of socio-political factors repre- the book, Walras describes markets for ‘pro- sented by the labour-capital class struggle in ductive services’ in addition to those for the determination of work conditions. ‘commodities’ （consumption goods） expli- By thus opposing Marx against Walras, cated in the previous part, and presents si- this study, unlike the traditional value and multaneous equations to satisfy the equilibri- exploitation theory-centred comparison be- um of all service and product markets. Wal- tween Marx and neoclassical economists, il- ras begins this part by distinguishing be- luminates a facet of Marx’s thought which tween ‘capital’ and ‘income’ or service.3） Here can be an intrinsic and potent criticism of the he remarks: neoclassical paradigm and thereby justify his socio-economic views. The elementary factors of production are Section II deals with Walras’s treatment three in number. In listing these factors, of labour exchange. It will be shown here most authors employ the terms: land, la- that Walras’s distinction between ‘personal bour and capital. But these terms are not faculties’（ facultés personnelles） and labour sufficiently rigorous to serve as a founda- （travail） never leads him to recognise the tion for rational deduction. Labour is the vital difference between their relationship service of human faculties or of persons. and the nonhuman factor-service relation- We must rank labour, therefore, not with ship. As a result, Walras perceives no partic- land and capital, but with land services ular characteristics of the human labour ex- ［‘rente’］ rendered by land, and with capi- change. This contributes to the formation of tal services［ ‘profit’］ rendered by capital the neoclassical principle of labour exchange goods. （emphasis in original; L. Walras as well as Walras’s general equilibrium sys- ［1926］ 1954, 212） tem. Section III focuses on Marx’s discus- sions that stress the worker’s subjectivity in Thus, Walras stresses the distinction between the decision on her labour performance and human（ or personal） faculties and labour as the resulting peculiarities of the labour pow- their service. This perception is comparable er-labour relationship. It will thus be argued with Marx’s labour power-labour distinction. that, as opposed to Walras’s personal facul- The similarity was previously pointed out by ties-labour distinction, Marx’s labour power- Mark Blaug（ 1996, 258）. Walras mentions labour distinction involves the grasp of the that he follows The Theory of Social Wealth human elements of labour exchange, and this by Auguste Walras, his father, regarding his insight leads to a cogent denial of its neo- definition of capital and income, as referred classical principle. Section IV concludes the to in note 3（ see L. Walras［ 1926］ 1954, paper. 212）. In that book, indeed, Auguste supplied OKADA: MARX VERSUS WALRAS ON LABOUR EXCHANGE 49 the same definition（ see A. Walras［ 1849］ of labour power （see L. Walras ［1926］ 1997, 140）. Furthermore, Auguste distin- 1954, 237-40, 271; Marx ［1867］ 1996, guished between personal faculties and la- 180-83）. bour before his son: ‘Labour, it is the income Walras states that the amount of labour is from personal faculties’（ Le travail, c’est le measurable in terms of labour time per capita revenu des facultés personnelles） （see A. （see L. Walras［ 1926］ 1954, 237）. This im- Walras［ 1849］ 1997, 157）.4） Although Wal- plies that each time-unit use of a personal ras’s personal faculties-labour distinction faculty provides the same service. Hence, the was thus an inheritance from his father, it is variability of the type of labour（ which is noteworthy because Jevons, Menger, and limited by the worker’s abilities but ought to most other early neoclassical economists did be considered different even if assuming one not specify a similar distinction.