Suchergebnisse

Preface -- Chapter 1: Marx's Theory of The Commodity in Chapter 1 of Capital -- Chapter 2: Critique of Heinrich's Value-Form Interpretation of Chapter 1 of Capital -- Chapter 3: Ergänzungen und Veränderungen (Additions and Changes): The Value Form Arises From the Value-Concept -- General Conclusions .

Front Matter -- Introduction: A 'Macro-Monetary' Interpretation of Marx's Theory -- Algebraic Summary: A 'Macro-Monetary' Interpretation of Marx's Theory -- Marx's Theory of the Production and Distribution of Surplus-Value: The Prior Determination of the Total Surplus-Value -- The Circuit of Money Capital: M Presupposed -- Money Has No Price: Marx's Theory of Money and the Transformation Problem -- Standard Interpretations -- Shaikh's Iterative Interpretation -- The New Interpretation -- Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI) -- The Rethinking Marxism Interpretation -- The Organic Composition of Capital Interpretation -- Replies to Criticisms of My Macro-Monetary Interpretation -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- Indexes.

Este artigo sugere uma maneira de determinar a "Expressão Monetária do Tempo de Trabalho" (a "EMTT") no atual regime de dinheiro de crédito inconversível – uma maneira que é consistente com a teoria geral do dinheiro de Marx e é quantitativamente a mesma determinação de Marx para a EMTT no caso do dinheiro fiduciário inconversível de seu tempo. No intuito de explicar o método de determinação da EMTT no caso do moderno dinheiro de crédito inconversível, primeiramente o artigo revisa a determinação de Marx da EMTT no caso do dinheiro-mercadoria e no caso do dinheiro fiduciário inconversível. Por fim, discute as semelhanças e as diferenças entre minha interpretação e a de Saros (2007) sobre a EMTT no caso do dinheiro fiduciário inconversível.

This article is a response to two other articles in this symposium by Tiago Camarinha Lopes and David Laibman. The article focuses mainly on the important question that both Camarinha Lopes and Laibman address in their articles: what does the labor theory of value do that other theories cannot do? In other words, what important phenomena of capitalist economies can Marx's theory based on the labor theory of value explain that other theories, especially Sraffian theory, cannot explain? Sections 1 and 2 discuss Camarinha Lopes' article, Section 3 discusses Laibman's article, and Section 4 presents my answer to this important question of what does the labor theory of value do.

This paper critically examines Robin Hahnel's 2017 book Radical Political Economy: Sraffa versus Marx and especially compares the relative explanatory power of Marx's theory and Sraffa's theory. Hahnel's book argues that Sraffa's theory is superior to Marx's theory with respect to the following six subjects: prices, profit, technological change, crises, the environment, and moral critique (each one considered in a separate chapter). This paper challenges Hahnel's arguments on all six subjects and argues that Marx's theory has greater explanatory power than Sraffa's theory and continues to be the best critical theory of capitalism.JEL Classification: B24, B51

Abstract
This is an introduction to an English translation of a 25-page excerpt from Marx's Manuscript of 1867–68, which was published for the first time in German in 2012 in the MEGA, Volume II/4.3. This excerpt (see pp. 162–92) is Marx's first and only attempt to incorporate unequal turnover times across industries into his theory of the equalisation of the profit rate and prices of production. The introduction attempts to clarify the overall logic of this excerpt as well as to point out Marx's many small errors in this messy first draft. The introduction concludes with the implications of this excerpt for the general interpretation of Marx's theory of prices of production (i.e. the transformation problem).

This paper is a reply to David Laibman's latest paper critical of my 2016 book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in Capital and the End of the "Transformation Problem." This paper responds to the following points: did I misstate Laibman's position in my previous paper?; the logical priority of the production of surplus-value over the distribution of surplus-value (i.e., the prior determination of the total surplus-value); different starting points: quantities of money capital (Marx) vs. quantities of physical inputs and outputs (Sraffa); is Marx's theory "monetary"?; and (most importantly) is my interpretation of Marx's theory logically incoherent? I argue that Laibman's criticism of logical incoherence is based on the usual fundamental misinterpretation of Marx's transformation of values into prices of production—as a transformation from one set of micro prices (the values of individual commodities) to another set of micro prices (the prices of production of individual commodities). To the contrary, I argue that the logic of Marx's transformation is from macro total price to micro individual prices of production and that this macro-to-micro transformation is logically coherent, so there is no transformation problem in Marx's theory of prices of production.

This paper responds to the most important criticism in Skillman's review of my book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in Capital—that I misinterpret the fundamental concept of the "value" of commodities in Marx's theory in Volume 1 of Capital. My reply emphasizes the difference between "simple commodities" and "commodities as products of capital." I argue that Marx's theory of value is about the value of commodities produced by capital, which is the macroeconomic total price of all commodities, and which is equal to the sum of the actual constant capital advanced at the beginning of the circuit of money capital and the new-value produced by labor of the current period ( P = C + N = C + m Lc). JEL Classification: B51; B14