Marx’s Critique of (Ricardian) Political Economy

The Marxist concept of value is very frequently equated, whether explicitly or merely tacitly, with the corresponding Ricardian concept of "labour expended". This paper argues that unlike the Ricardian theory of value, the Marxist theory of value is a monetary theory. In the Marxist system, the value of a commodity is expressed not through itself but through its distorted forms of appearance, in prices. Moreover, it cannot be defined in isolation, but exclusively in relation to all other commodities, in a process of exchange. In this relation of exchange value is materialised in money. The essential feature of the "market economy" (of capitalism) is thus not simply commodity exchange but monetary circulation and money. Commodity exchange presupposes thus the (positive) prices of all commodities involved. In other words, prices are not determined after the establishment of a non-monetary equilibrium system of barter between "production sectors", like the Sraffian "linear production systems". On the contrary, barter is for Marx non-existing, as all exchange transactions are made up of separate acts of exchange of commodities with money. Prices are determined in the process of capitalist commodity production, i.e. in a historically unique process of (capitalist) production-for-the-exchange, a process which unites immediate production with circulation. Money is thus conceived as the adequate form of appearance of capital, that is a material embodiment of abstract and therefore equal human labour, which the capitalist appropriates, and which in the framework of capitalist relations of exploitation is accumulated and functions as a "self-valorising value". Only these Marxian concepts of value and money enable, on the one hand, a radical critique to the Quantity Theory of money, and on the other, an insight into the process of credit-money formation, in the framework of the reproduction and circulation of the total social capital.

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

The paper examines Karl Marx's theory of value and its implications on the contemporary capitalist economy. By doing this, the paper critically reviews the principles of Marx's value analysis by extrapolating from the writings of Karl Marx and Neo -Marxists which fits into the Marxian theory of value. The study indicates that capitalism does have an overall tendency to extract surplus value from labour provided by the workers, since it is the most malleable (influenced) of things within the confines of capitalism in the production process as noted by Marx. According to Marx, a system like capitalism, where people are coerced or forced to sell their labour in order to survive is unjust and that in the modern capitalist economy, the rate of profitability or success in production is determined by the ability to produce surplus value. In contemporary capitalist economy, during the production process, the worker uses his/her labour to produce adequate goods and services, but only receive wages enough for subsistence, hence making a surplus for the capitalist. However, the question still remains whether the labourers/workers/proletariats have a choice of selling their labour or not in order to survive in the contemporary capitalist economy as it were in orthodox capitalism?

The paper examines Karl Marx's theory of value and its implications on the contemporary capitalist economy. By doing this, the paper critically reviews the principles of Marx's value analysis by extrapolating from the writings of Karl Marx and Neo -Marxists which fits into the Marxian theory of value. The study indicates that capitalism does have an overall tendency to extract surplus value from labour provided by the workers, since it is the most malleable (influenced) of things within the confines of capitalism in the production process as noted by Marx. According to Marx, a system like capitalism, where people are coerced or forced to sell their labour in order to survive is unjust and that in the modern capitalist economy, the rate of profitability or success in production is determined by the ability to produce surplus value. In contemporary capitalist economy, during the production process, the worker uses his/her labour to produce adequate goods and services, but only receive wages enough for subsistence, hence making a surplus for the capitalist. However, the question still remains whether the labourers/workers/proletariats have a choice of selling their labour or not in order to survive in the contemporary capitalist economy as it were in orthodox capitalism?

Graduate thesis for Sussex University's SPT (Social and Political Thought Program), supervised by Andrew Chitty. This paper critically examines the implications entailed in Marxian value theory brought by interpretations that stress Marx’s analysis of the value-form. Touching on areas such as the correct method of enquiry, and the aim of Marx's critique, it provides a detailed exposition of the traditional Marxian theory of value and investigates issues such as the problems of concepts like abstract labour and socially necessary labour time and substantialism in Marx’s “value”. These have led to value form theory and it ultimately identifies them as problematic enough to necessitate a break with the traditional understanding of value in Marxism towards a monetary theory of value. The reduction problem is both the central flaw at the heart of the traditional value theory, and what points towards a monetary value theory. The essay offers an elaboration of such a theory followed by a critical analysis of its implications. The implications are assessed first from the standpoint of the ontological insights of the value-form, and second the imperatives of (Marxian) critique. (1)The proposed value theory remains true to the core of the ethos of Marxist critique as a qualitative insight which illustrates how class relation determines the production and distribution of social product. (2)Beyond the merely qualitative, it remains compatible with the fundamental insight of Marxism, the law of value, asserted with reference to ideal precommensuration in production, thus remaining capable of identifying the causal mechanisms which constitute capitalist reproduction.Supplementing the conclusion is a discussion of what the value form approach entails for quantitatively-focused research, identifying the different positions of the debate and the direction in which it is heading, contextualizing those endeavours amidst a discussion of the priorities Marxist theory is to set for itself.

SSRN Electronic Journal

In the paper, we develop the research results presented in the author's previous works: https://osf.io/tk43d/ and https://osf.io/8tyma/. Firstly, we tried to reveal the mechanism of formation of the general rate of surplus value in the pre-capitalist economy and to answer the question of why Marx called the value an abstraction but a historical abstraction. Secondly, we have shown that Paul Samuelson's so-called "Eraser algorithm" was justified erroneously. Samuelson's error is rooted in his confusion about two types of technological matrices: Leontief and Dmitriev, in his analysis of the numerical example of Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz. Third, we have identified that the basis of Jan Steedman's erroneous 'redundancy criticism' of value categories is the failure to understand the reality that the technological matrices he uses contain implicit value and distributional categories, i.e., a kind of "Trojan horse". Fourthly, we have drawn attention to the fact that economists in the contemporary debate on the utility of the labour theory of value overlook the fact that this theory is designed to justify market value prices in the transition period from capitalism to socialism. The paper reveals the first steps towards the justification of an appropriate economic mechanism based on market value prices. Marx; transformation problem; labour theory of value; P. Samuelson and I. Steedman's errors; the economic mechanism of the transition to socialism; taxation; market value prices JEL CODES B14; B16; B24; B51; D58; E11; P16 ... I could have turned Volume III into something better than it is. But I ... believe I have done my duty by presenting Marx in Marx's own words, even at the risk of expecting the reader to do rather more thinking for himself. F. Engels (Marx [1892-5] 2004, 460). 2 Marx formulated the problem somewhat differently because he did not assume that the law of value would still be valid after the formation of average profit. In Theories of surplus value, he wrote, "If one did not take the definition of value as the basis, the average profit, and therefore also the cost-prices, would be purely imaginary and untenable." (Marx 1968, 190).

SSRN Electronic Journal

In this paper, we show that Sraffa’s prices are consistent with Marx’s analysis of the form of circulation of capital (Money–Commodities–Money) and his theory of the creation of new value by labour in the production process. On the contrary, according to many neo-Ricardian and Marxist scholars, Marx’s theory of value and Sraffa’s theory of prices are incompatible. In this framework, we develop our interpretation of Marx’s theory of new value based on the so-called ‘New Interpretation’ of Foley, Duménil, and Lipietz. Firstly, Marx analyses the division of aggregate social labour in producing various commodities. Living labour is the only factor that is not yet a value that enters the production process. Thus it creates new value. The value of money allows us to sum up the two factors that enter the production process, the means of production and the living labour. Secondly, focusing on surplus value, he analyses the class relationship between labourers and owners of the means of production in the capitalist society Regarding Sraffa’s theory of prices, our intent is not to reconstruct a thorough interpretation of Sraffa’s theory. We aim instead to retrace the path that leads him to believe that the labour spent in revenue production is not an arbitrary but a natural measure unit of prices. This path starts from re-evaluating Marxian theory, based on what Sraffa calls his hypothesis about the composition of the revenue and aggregate means of production. Finally, we develop Marx’s form of circulation of capital, including Sraffa’s prices.

Global Journal of Human Social Science Research, 2014

Introduction-Marx's theory of value arose out of the bid to understand the basis on which goods were exchanged. What is it that determines the quantity of a product that is exchanged with another? How is it that a bag of rice can be exchanged with two bales of cloth or why is it that both products share the same monetary value? Marx's theory was a build-up on the theories of bourgeois classical political economists, notably, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, et al. who laid down the foundation for modern day economic theory economic theory from their investigations of what exactly determined the value of a commodity. For Barbon (1696:2) "things have an intrinsic value and that the greatest number of things have their value from supplying the wants of the mind". Others like Ricardo and Smith posited that the reward for labour (wage) determined price of value of the commodity. Locke (1777:280), studying the issue of the consequences of lowering interest rates posited that "the natural value of anything consists in its fitness to supply the necessities or serve the convenience of human life". Also, some thought that this 'value' seen in exchange was a result of the importance of products, what is regarded as its usevalue. 'but that 'this property of a community is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities.

Review of Political Economy, 2018

Marxist political economy is alive and well, and not just because of the habitual turn to Marx in response to any crisis of capitalism. Both through Capital and through the continuing evolution of Marxism, Marxist political economy offers valuable insights that can illuminate the modalities of social and economic reproduction and the relationships between (different aspects of) the economic and the non-economic. Marxism's presence has been felt through its own internal debates and debates with other approaches to political economy, and even through its influence on those reacting against Marxism. The key to the continuing relevance and analytical strengths of Marxist political economy lies in its capacity to provide a framework of analysis for unifying disparate insights into and critiques of the contradictions of capitalism across the social sciences. The instrument for forging that unity is Marx's theory of value, the potential of which is examined and illustrated with reference to the Sraffian critique and two key concepts in Marxian political economy: the value of labour power and financialisation. They are explored in the light of the processes of commodification, commodity form and commodity calculation. ARTICLE HISTORY