Theories of Wages, Bourgeois, a system of views held by bourgeois economists on the essence and nature of wages, their level, upper and lower limits and factors determining them. Bourgeois economists interpret wages as the price of labour, or as the price of services or the product of labour. In this way the specific nature of labour power as a commodity and the uncompensated appropriation of surplus value by capitalists, i. e., the exploitation of labour by capital, are camouflaged. As the capitalist mode of production developed, wage theories changed to reflect specific features and characteristics of the various stages in the development of capitalism and its intensifying contradictions. Under pre-monopoly capitalism, especially in its early stages, bourgeois economists sought to explain the meagre level of wages by the cost of the minimum means of subsistence indispensable for the physical existence of the workers and their families. This concept, based on Thomas Malthus’ reactionary population theory (see Malthusianism) underlay the so-called "iron law of wages”, vigorously preached by the German petty-bourgeois socialist Ferdinand Lassalle and his followers. Denouncing the reactionary essence of that “law”, Marx and Engels showed that, in fact, it led to the renunciation of the revolutionary struggle of the working class, as the natural conclusion to be drawn from that law was that the poverty of the working class was caused by laws of nature rather than by the specific laws of capitalist production. A similar theory of "wage fund" was set forth by James Mill, John McCulloch and others in the second half of the 19th century. According to this theory, wages were dependent on the size of the wage fund (allegedly constant) and the number of workers, so the growth of the working population would inevitably result in a fall in wages and a rise in the latter would boost unemployment. In fact, however, as capitalism develops, both social capital and the part of it that is spent to buy labour power grow, so the "wage fund" theory conflicts with reality and, like other theories resting on the "iron law" concept, aims at disarming the working class ideologically and convincing it of the uselessness of its struggle for higher wages. The theory of marginal productivity formulated with respect to wages by British economist Alfred Marshall and American economist John Clark was most popular 359 in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. According to it, the level of wages is determined by the so-called marginal labour productivity, i. e., the value of the product produced by the least productive worker. The difference between the value of the aggregate product produced by all the workers and their total wages calculated on the basis of the least labour productivity of the “marginal” worker goes to the capitalist as remuneration for capital. The theory of marginal productivity is untenable because it ignores technical progress, which accounts for the fact that the involvement of additional labour power in production raises labour productivity rather than decreases it. Seeking to harmonise the theory of marginal productivity with the conditions of monopoly capitalism, today’s advocates of the theory have introduced the concept of "marginal income”, by which they mean the income kept by the capitalist after subtracting all the losses incurred by the output of additional products, which allegedly entails a fall in the retail prices of both additional products and those that were produced earlier but as yet remain unsold. Though current advocates of the theory still believe that the wages of the "marginal worker" should be calculated on the basis of the value of the marginal product he produces, they maintain that the value of that product should be estimated taking into account the-above-mentioned fall in prices, that is to say, on the basis of the "marginal income”. Hence, they claim, wages should be cut. The fundamental drawbacks of the “classic” theory of marginal productivity (in particular, the premise of the unchanging level of technological development) are also characteristic of the modern modification of this theory. The concept of marginal income is refuted by reality. While extending production, capitalists, as a rule, raise rather than lower prices, thereby augmenting their profits. Even when prices are lowered, this is usually compensated for by the growing mass of income owing to boosted production and sales. Widespread today is the collective agreement theory of wages, which proceeds from the idea that the level of wage rates depends on the employers’ demand for labour power and the workers’ demand for jobs, with the concrete size of wage rates determined by the so-called force of agreement between the sides participating in collective talks—trade unions, on the one hand, and capitalist monopolies, on the other. Instead of analysing the fundamental economic factors determining the level of wages, the collective agreement theory studies certain social factors that affect fluctuations in wage rates. This aims to help capitalists and corresponding government organisations to work out a strategy and tactics for countering the demands of the working class for higher wages. Bourgeois wage theories are generally characterised by their striving to prove that the workers get their fair share of the national income, which they claim is the product of not only labour but also capital, that the level of wages is objectively conditioned and any struggle to raise it can only lead to higher prices of goods, which will adversely affect the workers themselves and other working people as buyers of these goods. Marxism-Leninism has long since refuted the pseudo-scientific theories of bourgeois economics concerning the nature of wages and the factors determining their level. The Marxist-Leninist theory of wages that forms part of Marx’s doctrine of surplus value was thorougly substantiated in Capital, which reveals the mystery of the value and price of labour power transformed into wages and their role as a means for intensifying the exploitation of the working class and, at the same time, for cloaking this exploitation (see Wages under Capitalism).