Which Way Forward for Marxist Value Theory? A Rejoinder to Moseley

Fred Moseley's reply to my review essay on his Money and Totality essentially repeats the argument that was criticized at length in that essay. It rests on a grave misinterpretation of my own position and does not achieve its objective: to build upon Marx's work and provide solid foundations for ongoing progress along Marxist lines. The crucial logical incoherence of the argument in Money and Totality remains and is an obstacle to the goal that Moseley and I share: to continue the work begun by Marx and to use that work in the service of progressive social transformation around the world. </p

Value and Price: Controversy, Stasis, and Possibility

Controversy has prevailed since the problem of “transforming” values into prices first emerged in the late 19th century. Progress has, regrettably, been hampered by attempts to “vindicate” Marx’s work exactly, rather than treating him as a pioneer upon whom his successors must build, using the latest scientific methods. To make progress, the question must be faced squarely: what does the value dimension—assuming that we can define it and determine its properties with rigor and precision—actually do ? How does a value-theoretic political economy provide superior insights into capitalist laws of motion, which could not be attained by critical study of the empirically received categories (prices, wages, profits, production) alone? Insights from Marx and Engels into the formation of a general balance of the opposing class forces of capitalist society may help us in our search for answers to these questions

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

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

CAPITALISM: SOME THEORETICAL RECONSIDERATIONS

Attempts to understand the current economic crisis, the present stage of world capitalist development and the nature and role of socialist forces will be inconclusive and non-convergent, unless they are based on a rigorous foundation in the theory of capitalist surplus extraction in its pure form, and of the stadial (stages-based) nature of capitalist evolution. Capitalist exploitation rests upon three pillars: differential property ownership, workplace hierarchy and coercion, and existence of a social upper class; these pillars in turn require for their support the market, developed industrial production, and the modern state. Stadial development proceeds through four stages, based on the distinction between diffusion and accumulation, which in turn operate internally and externally in relation to the nation-state. Full capitalist development, in light of this model, is much less ubiquitous in today's world than is usually believed, and much less close to complete stadial fulfillment. Socialist forces must confront these realities in order best to build conditions for socialist construction and social transformation. </p