Money and Totality: Another Round of Debate on Value Formation and Transformation

David Laibman David Laibman

doi:10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.9.1.0021

Abstract

Fred Moseley's Money and Totality (2016) presents the author's “macro-monetary interpretation” of Marx's value theory, with particular reference to the transformation of value into price of production in Capital, Volume III. This theory, while trying to be faithful to Marx's texts, accomplishes this by means of a logically indefensible claim, which, if it came to be seen as representing Marx's work as such, would contribute to sidelining and disconfirming the Marxist tradition. Review of the long-standing “transformation problem” debate, in the light of Moseley's contribution, in non-technical terms, suggests that the way forward is to avoid text-based orthodox defenses of Marx in favor of re-working his core insights, building on the accomplishments of Marxist theory in the 20th century, and using the tools and methods of modern economic theory and social science wherever possible.

Highlights

The controversy about Marx’s theory of value—in particular, its place in the theory of capitalist production, exploitation, and competition—has continued, unabated, since Engels’s famous challenge in the “Preface” to Capital, Volume III
Fred Moseley, in the book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the “Transformation Problem” (Moseley 2016) under consideration here, offers a comprehensive treatment, from the standpoint of his “Macro-Monetary Interpretation” (MMI), with detailed attention to the source texts—Capital, Volume III, and the various “drafts” (Grundrisse, Contribution, Manuscripts of 1862–1863 and 1865) that have been made available with the publication of the MEGA2 volumes—and various alternative interpretations that have arisen in Marxist and Marxism-influenced circles in the 20th century and beyond, mainly among English-language authors
That alternative is represented by my own “theoretical time/consistent structure interpretation” (TT/CSI), which, modestly joins forces with a long tradition linking the work of Marxists (Sweezy, Dobb, Meek, Sraffa, Okishio, Brody, etc.), with contributions from many others (Bortkiewicz, Seton, Samuelson, Pasinetti, Kurz and Salvadori, etc.)

Summary

The Transformation Problem

To situate Moseley’s main point, a brief summary of the transformation problem is in order. The competitive process, results in a pooling-and-redistribution of surplus value: it is as though the capitalists take the given surplus value, produced in the various sectors, to a meeting at some central site where they put it into a common pile, and re-assign it to each of themselves in amounts proportional to the value of the capital invested in each production process, so that their rates of profit come out to be equal. Marx’s story about the pooling-and-redistribution of surplus value and formation of an equal rate of profit and prices of production is compelling It suggests, that workers are exploited by the entire capitalist class, not by each individual capitalist separately, since the surplus value appropriated by capitalists in a given industry does not come entirely from “their own” workers, but from a process involving all of the workers and capitalists taken together. This, is the background for Moseley’s MMI of Marx’s work

The Moseley Proposal

Outline of a Critique

Concluding Remarks