| The purpose of this dissertation is to elaborate, compare and critique the positions developed by Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill on the relation of production to distribution. Critical interpretations are developed for each specification. To be critical, an interpretation must do more than merely read back the words of a given (set of) text(s). It must focus upon those aspects of a system which both define its logical structure(s) and illuminate its meaning. Hence, in developing the alternative specifications of the relation in question, emphasis is placed upon not only the centrality of this particular specification to the economic theoretical structure developed by each theorist, but also on the underlying philosophical system whence each came. In each instance, illumative keys to understanding the theoretical construct are found in the ontological and epistemological dimensions of the respective philosophical systems.;Each specification of the relation in question is elaborated in both its most general form and under the particular assumptions of competitive capitalism. Once the alternative positions have been elaborated, they are compared and critiqued. Despite the radical differences which exist in both the philosophical systems and the general specifications, the alternative positions developed for the context of competitive capitalism are both compossible and surprisingly similar. Unfortunately, neither specification--in either its general or particular form--proves to be adequate. Critical examination reveals several sources of ambiguity. The most important of these are the degree of reductionism inherent in Mill's epistemology, and the structural complexity inherent in Marx's conception of the relation as an organic unity.;The research is believed to be important for several reasons. First, as a matter of antiquarian concern, there is substantial epigone which surrounds each specification. By interpreting each position in a manner that is consistent with the theorist's own philosophical system, it is possible to eliminate much of this confusion. Furthermore, every economic theoretical structure contains an implicit specification of the relation in question. Given the position which these two figures hold within the history of economic doctrines, comprehension of the limitations of both specifications sheds light on the limitations of economics itself. Finally, comprehension of both specification's strengths and weaknesses suggests some potentially fruitful lines for future research on the more ambiguous task of developing an adequate alternative specification.;Given the interdisciplinary nature of the research, considerable attention is given to the alternative philosophical systems. Special emphasis is placed upon the respective philosophies of science and scientific methods. Mill is interpreted as a radical empiricist. His Principles of Political Economy (1848) is interpreted as the best-worked-out variant of the broader epistemological system developed in his System of Logic (1843). Marx is interpreted as a critical rationalist. His specification of the relation in question is traced through the series of approximations he developed, beginning with the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and culminating in the analysis of "commodities" in Capital, Volume I (1867). The evolving form of Marx's position on the relation in question is treated in a fashion which stresses the continuity of his work. As a result, the interpretation is consistent with Marx's own dialectical method. The academic controversy over whether there was one or more than one Marx is avoided. |
