The Misinterpretation of Marx's Theory of Value

Journal of The History of Economic Thought, 1993

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

In a review of our work, Kincaid suggests that we are 'productivist', reducing interpretation of Marx and capitalism to production at the expense of the relatively independent role that can be played by the value-form in general and by the money-form in particular. In response, we argue that he distorts interpretation of our work through this prism of production versus exchange, unduly emphasises the independence of exchange to the point of underconsumptionism, and simplistically collapses the mediation between production and exchange in the restructuring that accompanies the accumulation of capital.

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.

Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 2008

Trois ecoles principalrs de theorie de valeur mamienne sont identifiees et situees par rapport a des sujets essentiels oh il existe une controverse en matiere de valeur, en particulier le postulat que le travail vital est l'unique source de valeur nouvelle. L'effondrement de la theorie de valeur de 1'Ccole 'orthodoxe' (Ricardo-marxiste) est attribuee aux raisonnement errone d'une conceptualisation de la valeur de 'travail exprime,' une approche rejetee de la m&me facon par les theoriciens de la valeur 'neo-orthodoxe' et 'fondamentaliste'. Cependant la comparaison des ecoles neo-orthodoxe et fondamentaliste revele que seule cette derniere est compatible avec les objectifs et les postulats essentiels de la theorie de Marx. En m&me temps, on indique que l'approche fondamentaliste ne peut &re soutenue que par un engagement explicite a l'idee que le travail abstrait (essence-m6me de la valeur) existe en tant qu'universel structure1 specifique au capitalisme. Three major schools of Marxian value theory are identified and situated in respect to some pivotal issues of the value controversy, in particular the postulate that living labour is the sole source of new value. The collapse of the 'orthodox' (Ricardian-Marxist) school of value theory is attributed to the fallacies of an 'embodied labour' conceptualization of value, an approach which has been rejected by 'neo-orthodox' and 'fundamentalist' value theorists alike. However a comparison of the neo-orthodox and fundamentalist schools reveals that only the latter remains consistent with the objectives and essential postulates of Marx's theory. At the same time, it is argued that the fundamentalist approach can only be sustained through an explicit commitment to the idea that abstract labour (as the 'substance' of value) exists as a structural 'universal' specific to capitalism. * I wish to thank David Schweitzer, Blanca Muratorio, Bob Ratner, Bob Chernomas and Derek Sayer for their helpful comments on an earlier elaboration of the ideas developed in this article (Smith, 1989). Thanks are also due to two anonymous CHSA reviewers and to Jim Curtis for a number of suggestions that have significantly strengthened the final product. The argument presented here is based on work which I carried out whilst in receipt of funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. This article was

Felsefe Arkivi, 2024

Marx’s concept of value has been subject to significant criticism. Robinson argues that the concept is awkward and obscure, as it is meant to explain the prices of commodities and thus must be a kind of price, but it is not. Consequently, Robinson holds that the concept of value makes no sense. Furthermore, according to Harvey, Marx in the Grundrisse confuses value with price. It seems to me that both Robinson’s criticism and Harvey’s exegesis are based on serious misunderstandings. In this article, I first unpack Marx’s criticism of Darimon’s proposal concerning time chits. The upshot is that, for Marx, production relations enjoy a priority, and a monetary reform like Darimon’s cannot fulfill the function of revolutionary change. So, time chits become a triviality. Second, I suggest a reconstruction of what I call Marx’s “nonconvergency thesis.” The thesis states that there is a supervenience between value and price. Marx says that Darimon is ignorant about this thesis, and his proposal relies on the delusion that the two are convergent. Therefore, I maintain that Harvey’s claim is misleading, as he overlooks the nonconvergency thesis articulated in the Grundrisse. And Robinson’s condemnation of the concept of value should be dismissed because her understanding is very much the same as Darimon’s, in that she ignores the two-layered ontological structure between value and price.

In a review of our work, Kincaid suggests that we are 'productivist', reducing interpretation of Marx and capitalism to production at the expense of the relatively independent role that can be played by the value-form in general and by the money-form in particular. In response, we argue that he distorts interpretation of our work through this prism of production versus exchange, unduly emphasises the independence of exchange to the point of underconsumptionism, and simplistically collapses the mediation between production and exchange in the restructuring that accompanies the accumulation of capital.

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.