<b>A Continuation of the Debate over <i>Money and Totality</i> </b>
<p class="first" id="d367762e81">This paper is a reply to David Laibman's latest paper critical of my 2016 book <i>Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in</i> Capital <i>and the End of the...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Pluto Journals
2019-03-01
|
| Series: | World Review of Political Economy |
| Online Access: | https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.10.1.0103 |
| Summary: | <p class="first" id="d367762e81">This paper is a reply to David Laibman's latest paper critical of my 2016 book
<i>Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in</i> Capital
<i>and the End of the “Transformation Problem.”</i> 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
<i>macro</i> total price to
<i>micro</i> individual prices of production and that this macro-to-micro transformation is logically
coherent, so there is
<i>no transformation problem in Marx's theory of prices of production</i>.
</p> |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2042-891X 2042-8928 |