Which Way Forward: Marx&apos;s Theory or Sraffa&apos;s Theory? A Reply to Laibman

Fred Moseley, null

doi:10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.9.2.0148

ScienceOpen: research and publishing network

For Publishers

For Researchers

Blog
About

Search
Advanced search

327

views

recommends

If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

The World Review of Political Economy is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journals. Furthermore Pluto Journals authors don’t pay article processing charges (APCs).

scite_

World Review of Political Economy

Volume 9, Issue 2

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Which Way Forward: Marx's Theory or Sraffa's Theory? A Reply to Laibman

Published

research-article

Author(s): Fred Moseley

Publication date (Print): Summer 2018

Journal: World Review of Political Economy

Publisher: Pluto Journals

Keywords: Marx, transformation problem, explanatory power

Abstract

This article is a response to David Laibman's review essay, in this journal, on my recent book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in Capital and the End of the “Transformation Problem.” Laibman argues that Marx's theory is logically incoherent (the well-known “transformation problem”) and that Sraffa's theory is the only coherent theory of prices and income distribution, and therefore the “way forward” for critical economists is Sraffa's theory. I argue, to the contrary (in my book and in this article), that Marx's theory, correctly understood, is logically coherent (no transformation problem) and that Marx's theory has much greater explanatory power than Sraffa's theory, and therefore the “way forward” for critical economists continues to be Marx's theory.

Content

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (doi): 10.13169

Journal ID (publisher-id): worlrevipoliecon

Title: World Review of Political Economy

Publisher: Pluto Journals

ISSN (Print): 2042891X

ISSN (Electronic): 20428928

Publication date (Print): Summer 2018

Volume: 9

Issue: 2

Pages: 148-163

Article

Publisher ID: worlrevipoliecon.9.2.0148

DOI: 10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.9.2.0148

SO-VID: 5a1f7ba3-7bf3-4e8a-9834-a674f6654a3e

License:

All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

History

References

Laibman, D. 2018. “Money and Totality: Another Round of Debate on Value Formation and Transformation.” World Review of Political Economy 9 (1): 21–40.
Marx, K. (1867) 1977. Capital . Vol. 1. New York: Random House.
Marx, K. (1884) 1978. Capital . Vol. 2. New York: Random House.
Marx, K. (1894) 1982. Capital . Vol. 3. New York: Random House.
Moseley, F. 2009. “The Development of Marx's Theory of the Distribution of Surplus-Value in the Manuscript of 1861–63.” In Re-reading Marx: New Perspectives after the Critical Edition , edited by R. Bellofiore and R. Fineschi, 128–147. London: Palgrave.
Moseley, F. 2016a. Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in Capital and the End of the “Transformation Problem.” Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers.
Moseley, F. 2016b. “Introduction.” In Marx's Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865 , edited by F. Moseley, 1–14. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Shaikh, A. 1977. “Marx's Theory of Value and the ‘Transformation Problem.’” In The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism , edited by J. Schwartz and S. Monica, 106–139. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing.

Comments

Comment on this article

[1] Laibman, D. 2018. “Money and Totality: Another Round of Debate on Value Formation and Transformation.” World Review of Political Economy 9 (1): 21–40.

[2] Marx, K. (1867) 1977. Capital . Vol. 1. New York: Random House.

[3] Marx, K. (1884) 1978. Capital . Vol. 2. New York: Random House.

[4] Marx, K. (1894) 1982. Capital . Vol. 3. New York: Random House.

[5] Moseley, F. 2009. “The Development of Marx's Theory of the Distribution of Surplus-Value in the Manuscript of 1861–63.” In Re-reading Marx: New Perspectives after the Critical Edition , edited by R. Bellofiore and R. Fineschi, 128–147. London: Palgrave.

[6] Moseley, F. 2016a. Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in Capital and the End of the “Transformation Problem.” Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers.

[7] Moseley, F. 2016b. “Introduction.” In Marx's Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865 , edited by F. Moseley, 1–14. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

[8] Shaikh, A. 1977. “Marx's Theory of Value and the ‘Transformation Problem.’” In The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism , edited by J. Schwartz and S. Monica, 106–139. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing.