I come from that math and finance side, so I have not studied economics thoroughly, but I have always thought of it as something that could be tackled via game theory (when treatable). I have recently come accross a statement about collectivization in USSR by one person who is known to be leaning heavily towards Marxist views. It goes like this
In the countryside now there were people who had a lot of success in agriculture and those who did not. The former then could exploit the latter. That by definition leads to underpayment which generates surplus value for the former.
Are there some gaps in reasoning above (if we take Marx to be correct), or does chain exploitation-underpayment-surplus value indeed always hold in Marxism and one always leads to the successor in that chain?
In any case, from what I understand this chain in Marxism holds at least in some cases. Does it assume (implicitly or explicitly) that this is a zero-sum game? Since otherwise both the exploiter (an entity with resources but requiring the working force) and the worker (an entity with the working force but requiring the resources to work on) can be better off in case of exploitation comparing to case of no exploitation.
Please tell me if more clarity is needed in any part of this post.
