Theory Of Surplus Value Research Articles

The Change in the Original Plan for Marx’s Capital and Its Causes

As remarkable as it may seem, the set of problems concerning the structure of Marx’s chief work, as well as its relation to Theories of Surplus Value, on the one hand, and to the earlier publication A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, on the other, has never been the subject of an investigation. One can scarcely find another book that has shaped a whole century to the same extent, theoretically and practically, and which, despite its enormous importance, has been treated with a greater indifference with regard to its form, the history of its genesis and the logic of its structure! It would be superfluous to speculate here about the reasons for the unsatisfactory state of research on Marx. Suffice it to say that – despite all the discussions about Marx that we have gone through over the past three decades, in the advanced capitalist countries of Europe – we still find ourselves only at the start of scientific research on Marx. Only the publication of Marx’s works announced by the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow will decisively change this situation. Regardless, it would be an inexcusable relapse into the mistakes of historicism to remain theoretically inactive until such a time. On the contrary, the following investigation attempts to critically evaluate the problem encompassed in the title on the basis of already-known source materials and to demonstrate that important insights can be gleaned from them. The problem that arises here is twofold. The first concerns the preliminary question whose answer must precede any scientific analysis of Marx’s thought, the question of the completeness of the materials that have come down to us. That is, whether Capital, as it exists now – including Theories of Surplus

Application of Value-Driven Design to Commercial AeroEngine Systems

Value-Driven Design provides a framework to enhance the systems engineering processes for the design of large systems. By employing economics in decision making, Value-Driven Design enables rational decision making in terms of the optimum business and technical solution at every level of engineering design. This paper explains the application of ValueDriven Design to the aero-engine system through two case studies, which were conducted through workshops under the Rolls-Royce plc Advanced Cost Modeling Methodologies project. The Surplus Value Theory was utilized to provide a metric that can trade-off component designs with changes in continuous and discrete design variables. Illustrative results are presented to demonstrate how the methodology and modeling approach can be used to evaluate designs and select the value-enhancing solution.

The Monetary Foundation of the Economic Circuit and the Principle of Effective Demand in Marx, Keynes and Kalecki

Marx carried out the first full inquiry on the economics of the all-comprising circulation process of capital, first in Grundrisse in the late 1850s, and later in Capital and Theories of Surplus Value in the 1860s and the 1870s. Two substantial aspects are at the center of Marx’s analysis: (a) the monetary determination of the social process of production and circulation of capital, i.e. the fact that money-capital is a social relation determining the interaction of agents in the monetary production economy alias capitalism; and (b) the notion of the economic circuit as the key economic category for the understanding of the monetary logic of the principle of effective demand. These aspects are also at the center of Keynes’s and Kalecki’s foundation of the theory of the monetary production economy.

Marx's Theory of Ground Rent: A Critical Assessment

This critical essay provides the reader with an up-to-date assessment of Marx's relatively neglected theory of absolute ground rent by bringing together in a coherent manner his scattered observations and arguments contained primarily in Capital, Vol. III and Theories of Surplus Value, Vol. II. It also reviews the extant secondary literature which suggests that within Marx's theory of rent is an embryonic theory of monopoly from which scholars can draw important insights into the history of economic thought and the workings of mature capitalism. The paper is organized as follows. After an introductory section, Section II provides the reader with an overview of Marx's theory of differential rent and compares it to that of Ricardo, particularly Marx's discussion of differential rent II and whether nature is productive of exchange value. Section III discusses Marx's theory of absolute rent in light of recent criticisms by prominent scholars and suggests that what determines whether rent is paid on the marginal land is not technical backwardness or lower productivity of labor per se, but a social relation, viz., the monopoly created by the private ownership of land. The last section summarizes the main arguments and suggests some avenues for future research.

The New Reading of Karl Marx’s Capital in the United States

Allen Oakley scrutinised the evolution and development of Karl Marx’s critique of political economy from its earliest roots to the mature theory of surplus value. This theory was both a development of classical themes and also a transformation into a unique approach to economic systems. This paper explores the uniqueness of Marx’s theory of the relationship between social classes and the production, appropriation and distribution of surplus value. It recognises that Marx’s theory is not reductionism but rather ‘overdeterminist’, a multi-causal and multi-layered analysis of classes under capitalism. This new reading of Marx’s Capital has been gathering momentum for a few decades now. In this approach, people occupy multi-class positions; crises both reflect and transform the production and distribution of surplus value; and past and present capitalist class systems oscillate between both private and state forms. The new approach also enables one to include, as objects of class analysis, firms, states, financial institutions, households and global relations.

Marx's analysis of the falling rate of profit in the first version of Volume III of capital

This paper provides an analysis of the Hodgskin section of Theories of Surplus Value and the general law section of the first version of Volume III of Capital. It then considers Part III of Volume III, the evolution of Marx's thought and various interpretations of his theory in the light of this analysis. It is suggested that, as late as the 1870s, Marx had hoped to be able to provide a demonstration that the rate of profit must fall. The main conclusions are that (1) Marx's major attempt to show that the rate of profit must fall occurred in the general law section, (2) Part III does not contain a demonstration that the rate of profit must fall and (3) Marx was never able to demonstrate that the rate of profit must fall and he was aware of this.

Marx’s Heritage and the Modern Economic Science (The “Round Table” of “Voprosy Economiki”)

The "round table" held by "Voprosy Economiki" was devoted to urgency of Marx's scientific heritage. The articles by E. Gaidar and V. Mau, A. Buzgalin and A. Kolganov, L. Grebnev published in 2004 were in the focus of discussion. The session was conducted by the editor-in-chief academician L. Abalkin. Theoretical questions of the importance of K. Marx's and F. Engels' contribution in the world economic science, of modern opportunities of using marxist approach, of adequacy of the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value were debated. Opinions differed: a number of participants supported Marx's economic concepts while others spoke about its conformity to realities of XIX century, and not those of the end of XX - the beginning of XXI centuries. The question of dogmatism of Marx's doctrine and the necessity of its creative revisionism was also risen. The question of "liberal marxism" as a basis for further development of modern liberalism was actively discussed. Certain attention was paid to the problem of "secular religiousness" of marxism - its acceptance as the official national ideology and its spreading as a specific religion among the population. The first part of the session is introduced including the presentations by O. Ananyin, S. Dzarasov, T. Oizerman, G. Bagaturiya, A. Chepurenko, V. Kulikov, V. Mezhuev, M. Voeikov, G. Gloveli, V. Kudrov, L. Vasina.

On Modern Scientific Assessment of the Economic Theory of Marx-Engels-Lenin <i>(Ten Items for Reflection)</i>

Substantive provisions of the Marx-Engels-Lenin economic theory in comparison with vital realities of XX century are critically considered in the article. Theories of surplus value, labor value, general law of capitalist accumulation, absolute and relative impoverishment of proletariat are examined. The author points to utopianism and inconsistency of Marx's theory and calls Russian economists for creation of new economic theory adequate to challenges of XXI century.

M. ホルクハイマーの批判理論における矛盾の概念について

This paper considers the relation between M. Horkheimer's critical theory and Marxism with respect to the concept of contradiction. With respect to historical materialism, Horkheimer is regarded as having changed from an initially tentative positive attitude to one of denial. First, this paper begins with an overview of this change dividing Horkheimer's studies into two periods depending on whether he was positive or negative in his view of historical materialism. Second, two kinds of objections to Horkheimer's change are explored and criticized. Third, it is shown from the viewpoint of surplus value theory Horkheimer thought that the contradictions inherent in capitalism would not lead to emancipation from capitalism but to domination by capitalism and that human subjectivity would fall into crisis. Finally, it is demonstrated that these issues are part of continuity from Marx to Horkheimer.

Sraffa's path to Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. An interpretation

The present article provides a reconstruction of the path followed by Sraffa in the long journey (begun in the late 1920s) which brought him to his 1960 book. The starting point of Sraffa's research was the formulation of his cost-price equations, which surprisingly enough appear to have been derived neither from Ricardo's theory of value, nor from Marx's 'transformation of values into prices of production', but rather from Marx's reproduction schemes, published in volume II of Capital , to which Sraffa was almost certainly brought by his study of Marx's interpretation of Physiocratic theory in volume I of Theories of Surplus Value . The main device that Sraffa used in his attempts to bring to light the existence of solutions to his system and their properties, which basically meant building a consistent wage--profit--price relationship, was that of somehow cutting out the prices from this relationship. The paper shows that different routes were attempted by Sraffa to achieve this end, and that the main influences on these attempts were Ricardo and Marx, in particular Ricardo's corn-ratio theory of profits, and the related conception of a maximum rate of profits. In the course of his research, Sraffa was helped by some distinguished mathematicians, in particular Frank P. Ramsey and Abram S. Besicovitch. Of Ramsey's contribution there are important traces, but no more than traces, while ample records remain of the relationship between Sraffa and Besicovitch, and they will play an important part in the story told in this paper. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

The Time Dimension in Marxian Social Theory

This article considers praxis, labor, and history as aspects of time that are constitutive of Marxian theory. The transition from ‘praxis’ to the critical analysis of capitalism in the labor theory of surplus value is discussed. The main part of the article suggests steps for analyzing the historical dimension of capitalist globalization. First, the forms of capital and their trajectories, e.g. commercial, productive, and financial capital, are distinguished. Second, transnational capitalist expansion is described and explained, using the movement of finance capital as the main criterion of historical periodization. Third, the article shows the importance of a unique moment of historical time, namely the major part of the 20th century, for making Marxian theorizing amenable to certain standards of explanatory social theory.

The Counterfactual Method of Marx's Theory of Surplus

The aim of this paper is to show that Marx supports his theory of surplus value by developing a counterfactual argument, that is, by comparing the 'normal' state of a capitalist economy against a hypothetical state in which no surplus is produced. Marx then divides his analysis of value into three successive steps. The first deals with the production of new value in the sphere of production; the second with the process of creation of surplus value, both in the sphere of production and in the sphere of circulation; and the third with the process of equalisation of the rate of profit, which is accomplished via capitalist competition in the sphere of circulation. The paper proposes a formalisation of the three-step analysis and of the counterfactual argument. Marx's three-step analysis is shown to be a scientific analysis of the hidden connections between social relations (expressed in labour flows) and commodity exchange; thus it is not a useless detour.

The Nightmare and the Dream: Edward Bellamy and the Travails of Socialist Thought

In the light of recent events, the once widely accepted Marxist distinction between “scientific” and “utopian” socialism is fading rapidly. For it has become increasingly difficult to believe that any form of socialism is inherent in the workings of history, as the Marxists had claimed for their “scientific” variety. Today Marxism, in its own terms, turns out to be “utopian.” One can now more readily recognize the kinship of the many different socialisms as well as the significance of their link to the social ideals of the past. What had previously been a somewhat antiquarian literature on “precursors,” “forerunners,” and “schismatics” of socialism suddenly appears as especially pertinent and perhaps even central. Today, without difficulty, one turns away from the various contradistinctions developed in this scholarship and toward the interconnections implicit in it.1Surveying this literature, we can recognize three preeminent social ideals that went into the making of the various socialisms – the call for social justice, the aspiration toward a society of brotherly love, and the belief that one could rid society of poverty. It was the eighth-century prophets of the Hebrew Bible who advanced the audacious demand for justice in society. They urged an end to oppression, cruelty, abuse, and more generally that people be given what was rightfully theirs. This demand recurs in almost all the socialist programs. In the Marxist scheme, it takes the form of the theory of surplus value which describes capitalist profit as a surplus product stolen (“entwandt”) from the worker who creates it.

Marxism, Neoclassical Economics and the Length of the Working Day

The intention of this paper is to provide an insight into historical and contemporary conflict over the length of the working day by utilizing a particular interpretation of Marx's theory of surplus-value. Epistemological priority is given to labour time in examining conflict over distribution and working conditions. Historical and recent evidence is brought to bear to demonstrate the relevance of this conflict in the context of recent debate over working hours in the EU in general and the UK in particular.

Game Theory, Marxism and the Foundations of Collective Action

This paper discusses the philosophical foundations of game-theoretic Marxism. Initially the reductionist pretensions of analytical Marxism, which has practised game-theoretic Marxism, are considered and rejected. After advancing an anti-reductionist game-theoretic formulation of Marx’s theory of surplus-value, in terms of bilateral monopoly, problems of collective action are examined. It is recognised that during particular historical epochs instrumental rationality may capture the process through which individual agents act. However, it is proposed that the instrumental view of rationality should not be assumed to be a trans-historical fact of human nature and that alternative philosophical conceptions of rationality recently advanced within the game theory literature provide a more satisfactory basis for social scientific investigation.

Marx's Value, Exchange and Surplus Value Theory: A Suggested Interpretation

The concept of commodity society based on a specific division of labour (opposition between private and social labour) and that of surplus-value are the most prominent achievements of Marx's intellectual efforts in dealing with the economy of capitalism. This paper attempts to evaluate the consistency of the theoretical propositions inherent in these concepts. The main contention is that an internal criticism of Marx's theory of exchange and surplus-value leads one to restate it in a different framework. This framework. which mas be called monetary approach represents an alternative to value theory. The first section of the paper is devoted to Marx's value theory, especially to the form of value analysis. We suggest that Marx did not succeed in deriving money from commodity. As a consequence, money, if any, has to be presupposed at the same time as the specific division of labour. Doing so is breaking with the typical abstraction of value theory which substitutes values for monetary magnitudes, the former being thought of as expressing the essence of society in contrast with the latter conceived as surface phenomena. The second section points out the logical inconsistencies which make the surplus value theory unsuitable for its purpose. A restatement will be suggested in which the monetary character of economic relations is again central.

Exploitation via labour power in Marx

Marx's account of capitalist exploitation is undermined by inter-related confusions surrounding the notion of “labour power.” These confusions relate to [i] what labour power is, [ii] what happens to labour power in the labour market, and [iii] what the epistemic status of labour power is (the issue of “appearance and reality”). The central theses of the paper are [a] that property ownership is the wrong model for understanding the exploitation of labour, and [b] that the concept of exploitation is linked more fruitfully to a conception of distributive injustice than to Marx's theory of surplus value.

Value and Dialectic in Marx

I find it difficult to agree with Garegnani's assertion that for Marx the role of labor value is merely to provide a noncircular determination of the rate of and of prices. Vianello and Lippi have shown elsewhere that this thesis is untenable. I would like to add a few elementary considerations of my own in further support of their arguments. Let me begin with Marx's comment on chapter 6 of Book I of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (see Theories of Surplus Value, vol. 1, pp. 186-198). The outline of the argument is as follows: The amount of value that wage labor adds to raw materials divides in two parts. One is the value of labor power: namely, wages. The other becomes what Smith calls and what Marx calls surplus value. With this second component of value, the capitalist entrepreneur pays interest to those who advanced money to him and ground rent to the owner of the land on which he has located his enterprise. What remains is profit in the strict sense. The argument is simple but eloquent. It gives us the anatomy of modern bourgeois society (which is what Marx

Marx on Ricardo: an explanation of some important misunderstandings

Ricardo's theory of value and distribution is reconstructed by proceeding along the lines of Marx's critique of Ricardo. It is thus an anti-critique of Marx's reading of Ricardo. The chapter ‘On Value’ in Ricardo's Principles is shown to be a consistent and rigorous treatment of the determinants of prices of production. According to Ricardo labor-values merely serve to approximate more elaborate standards of value. Marx's criticism is shown to rest crucially on his own misinterpretation of Ricardo's definitions and presupposes his own – faulty – theory of surplus value. Therefore Ricardo's theory can – contrary to Marx's theory of surplus value – still be regarded as a fruitful complement to Sraffa's model.

Marx and Keynes on Money

(1997). Marx and Keynes on Money. International Journal of Political Economy: Vol. 27, Marx, Keynes, and Money, pp. 65-91.