« Back to Results

A Dialog on the Transformation Problem

Paper Session

Sunday, Jan. 7, 2018 8:00 AM - 10:00 AM

Loews Philadelphia, Adams
Hosted By: Union for Radical Political Economics
  • Chair: James Devine, Loyola Marymount University

Money and Totality: A Macro-monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the “Transformation Problem”

Fred Moseley
,
Mount Holyoke College

Abstract

This paper is an introduction to the main points of my recent book by the same title. As the title suggests, the book is a reexamination of the logical method employed by Marx in his theory of capitalism in Capital, especially as related to the long-standing controversy over the so-called “transformation problem”, according to which Marx’s theory of prices of production in Volume 3 of Capital is supposed to be logically inconsistent with this theory of value and surplus-value in Volume 1. This criticism has been the main reason for rejecting Marx’s theory over the last century. My book argues that, if Marx’s logical method is correctly understood, then Marx’s theory of prices of production in Volume 3 is logically consistent and there is no transformation problem in Marx’s theory.

The book argues that there are two main aspects of Marx’s logical method that are especially relevant to the transformation problem, and I characterize these two aspects in modern economic terms as macroeconomic and monetary. The first two sections of this paper discuss in turn these two main aspects of Marx’s logical method, with primary emphasis in this paper on the monetary aspect because it is the most controversial. Section 2 on the monetary aspect argues that Marx did not “fail to transform the inputs of constant capital and variable capital, as is commonly alleged, and thus there in no “transformation problem” in Marx’s theory. Section 3 presents an algebraic summary of this macro-monetary interpretation of Marx’s theory and Section 4 discusses a few examples of the textual evidence related to the monetary aspect of Marx’s logical method.

The Capitalist Determination of Value: Science Beyond Impasse

David Laibman
,
Brooklyn College

Abstract

125 years of debate on the "transformation problem" have not resolved the issues dividing participants, many of whom reject the notion that there is a "problem," others that there is a "transformation."  The way forward has been indicated all along: pursue an open-ended development and substantiation of the core concept of value theory: the grounding of exchange, circulation and monetary relations in abstract social labor time.  This requires us to 1) use all available tools from modern economic theory (themselves constantly evolving and subject to critical analysis); 2) address both the qualitative and the quantitative aspects of the subject and their interconnection; and 3) avoid approaching Marx's texts as sacred scripture, to be completely vindicated.  Despite the "transformation" impasse, the complete determination of value relations in the abstract capitalist economy is important: it enables us to get the balance right between appearances and essence, and to grasp capitalist exploitation clearly, both in relation to exploitation in general and to the many concrete historical, institutional and political forms in which it appears.

Modern Theories of Value and Price of Production: Towards a Common Research Project

Erik Olsen
,
University of Missouri-Kansas City

Abstract

Several distinct approaches to Marxian value theory emerged in response to the critiques of the 1960's and 1970's. Contributors to this literature often go to great lengths to critique others and emphasize what is novel or different in their work. This makes the literature on Marxian value theory since the early 1980's seem disparate and fragmented, characterized by rivalry rather than convergence. This paper takes a different perspective and argues that there are significant unrecognized commonalities and complementarities among these various approaches. Of particular importance in this are the issues of money and the conservation of value principle, which is central to most of the newer approaches. Recognizing these commonalities and complementarities allows for the development of a common research project aimed at resolving a longstanding debate. Given that the traditional attitude of academic rivalry has failed to lead to consensus, it is argued that a different approach is not only warranted but necessary.

Totality, Tautology, and Transformation: Perspectives on the Marxian "Transformation Problem"

Gilbert Skillman
,
Wesleyan University

Abstract

This paper offers a critical assessment of Fred Moseley’s “macro-monetary” approach to the well-known "transformation problem" in light of Marx's account of value, price, profit and exploitation in successive drafts of Capital and recent research on these concepts and their interconnections. Implications of the paper’s argument for future research on the nature and manifestation of capitalist exploitation are considered.
Discussant(s)
Fred Moseley
,
Mount Holyoke College
David Laibman
,
Brooklyn College
Erik Olsen
,
University of Missouri-Kansas City
JEL Classifications
  • B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches