论文部分内容阅读
这里译载的三篇评述《垄断竞争理论》的文章,是美国经济学会第76届年会上为纪念美国著名资产阶级经济学家张伯仑《垄断竞争理论》发表30周年而提出的论文。《垄断竞争理论》一书在1933年出版后广泛流传于资产阶级经济学界,被认为是当代资产阶级“垄断经济学说”的一本“经典著作”,在资本主义国家产生了相当大的影响。张伯仑为了粉饰垄断现象,替垄断资本辩解,捏造出一套荒谬“理论”。在他看来,资本主义市场的普遍情况既不是垄断,也不是完全竞争,而是所谓垄断和完全竞争两种因素的混合。他把造成垄断的原因归之于什么“产品差别”,这种“产品差别”则由于产品的“本性”和适应消费者不同需要所产生。这显然是故意混淆是非,把小企业和垄断资本等同起来,并且妄图论证:通过垄断之间的竞争,不仅可以改进产品质量、花色、式样,而且还能适应消费者的不同需要;既然如此,那末垄断本身就不是坏事而是“好事”了。当然这是十分荒谬和完全站不住脚的。首先,垄断的产生是生产集中发展到一定阶段的必然结果,决不是由于什么“产品差别”。其次,所谓垄断竞争决不能也没有解决资本主义固有的种种矛盾,相反,事实证明,在垄断阶段,垄断与竞争交织在一起,只是加剧了资本主义固有的种种矛盾,导致日益严重而深刻的经济危机,使劳动人民遭到更加残酷的压迫和剥削。张伯仑自称他的《垄断竞争理论》的主是要得出垄断竞争价值论。按照他的这种价值论,消费者购买商品所支付的价格恰好等于生产和销售该商品的生产要素的报酬。因此在这种价值论看来,垄断资本不但没有加强剥削,而且资本主义本来就是一种没有剥削的制度。这种“理论”的反动性是不言而喻的。三篇评述文章的作者们异口同声地为张伯仑捧场。比萧普把《垄断竞争理论》一书说成是“掀起了一场理论革命,其在微观经济领域里比较重要可以同凯恩斯分析在宏观经济学里比较重要相比拟”。包莫尔大力宣扬张伯仑的“理论”对资产阶级“福利经济学”的“贡献”。培因则吹嘘张伯仑著作对“行业组织”这个领域所起的“决定性影响”。可见,他们的立场与张伯仑一样,都是为垄断资本利益效劳的。
The three articles “Monopolistic Competition Theory” translated here are the papers presented by the 76th Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the publication of Monopoly Competition Theory by the famous American bourgeois economist Zhang Bolun. The book “The Theory of Monopolistic Competition” was widely circulated in bourgeois economics circles after it was published in 1933 and was considered as a “classic book” of the theory of “monopoly economy” of the contemporary bourgeoisie and had a considerable impact in capitalist countries. In order to whitewash the monopoly phenomenon, Zhang Bowun justified the monopoly capital and fabricated a ridiculous “theory.” In his view, the prevailing capitalist market is neither a monopoly nor an entirely competitive one, but a mixture of the so-called monopoly and perfect competition. He attributed to the monopoly caused by what “product differentiation”, this “product differentiation” because of the product “nature” and adapt to the different needs of consumers arising. Obviously, this is a deliberate confusion of right and wrong, equating small businesses with monopoly capital, and vainly argues that competition between monopolies can not only improve product quality, design, and style, but also adapt to the different needs of consumers. In this case, Then the monopoly itself is not a bad thing but a “good thing.” Of course, this is very absurd and totally untenable. First of all, the emergence of monopoly is the inevitable result of the concentrated development of production to a certain stage, not due to any “product differentiation”. Secondly, the so-called monopolistic competition can and can not and does not solve all the contradictions inherent in capitalism. On the contrary, it has been proved that monopoly and competition are intertwined in the monopoly stage only exacerbate the inherent contradictions of capitalism and lead to an increasingly serious and profound economic crisis So that the working people are subjected to even more cruel oppression and exploitation. Zhang Bowun claiming to be his “monopolistic competition theory,” the Lord is to come to monopolistic competition theory of value. According to his theory of value, the price paid by the consumer for the purchase of goods equals the payment for the production of the good and the sale of the goods. Therefore, in view of this kind of axiology, monopoly capital not only does not strengthen exploitation, but also capitalism has always been a system that is not exploited. The reactionary nature of this “theory” is self-evident. The authors of the three review articles unanimously praised Chamberlain. It is “a theoretical revolution” that is more important than that of Xiaopu’s theory of “monopolistic competition,” which is more important in the microeconomics field than the more important Keynesian analysis in macroeconomics. “ Bao Moore vigorously promote Zhang Bolun’s ”theory“ of the ”welfare economics bourgeois“ contribution. Peiwen boasted of the ”decisive influence“ that Chamberlain’s book had on the field of ”industrial organization." It can be seen that their position, like that of Chamberlain, all serves the interests of monopoly capital.