Which Way Forward: Marx's Theory or Sraffa's Theory? A Reply to Laibman
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...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Pluto Journals
2018-06-01
|
| Series: | World Review of Political Economy |
| Online Access: | https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.9.2.0148 |
| _version_ | 1797834189153763328 |
|---|---|
| author | Fred Moseley |
| author_facet | Fred Moseley |
| author_sort | Fred Moseley |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T14:35:33Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-29c2071ae5e04b77b97b32e99c8baacd |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2042-891X 2042-8928 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T14:35:33Z |
| publishDate | 2018-06-01 |
| publisher | Pluto Journals |
| record_format | Article |
| series | World Review of Political Economy |
| spelling | doaj.art-29c2071ae5e04b77b97b32e99c8baacd2023-05-03T13:37:33ZengPluto JournalsWorld Review of Political Economy2042-891X2042-89282018-06-019214816310.13169/worlrevipoliecon.9.2.0148Which Way Forward: Marx's Theory or Sraffa's Theory? A Reply to LaibmanFred MoseleyThis 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.https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.9.2.0148 |
| spellingShingle | Fred Moseley Which Way Forward: Marx's Theory or Sraffa's Theory? A Reply to Laibman World Review of Political Economy |
| title | Which Way Forward: Marx's Theory or Sraffa's Theory? A Reply to Laibman |
| title_full | Which Way Forward: Marx's Theory or Sraffa's Theory? A Reply to Laibman |
| title_fullStr | Which Way Forward: Marx's Theory or Sraffa's Theory? A Reply to Laibman |
| title_full_unstemmed | Which Way Forward: Marx's Theory or Sraffa's Theory? A Reply to Laibman |
| title_short | Which Way Forward: Marx's Theory or Sraffa's Theory? A Reply to Laibman |
| title_sort | which way forward marx s theory or sraffa s theory a reply to laibman |
| url | https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.9.2.0148 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fredmoseley whichwayforwardmarxstheoryorsraffastheoryareplytolaibman |