Surplus Value Production and Realization in Marxian Theory – Applications to the U.S., 1990–2015

ABSTRACT

Marx's Capital shows that surplus value can be produced in one industry, yet realized as profit (and possibly revenue) by other industries over the course of circulation. This paper highlights the separation between surplus value production and realization in Marx's work, and develops a new method for estimating surplus value production at the industry level to trace out transfers of surplus value across industries. The framework is based on the ‘New Interpretation’ and links money value added to surplus value production at the industry level. Data on value added by industry for the U.S. are used to estimate surplus value production by industry. The analysis allows comparison of surplus value production and realization in each industry. The pattern of differentials between surplus value creation and realization across industries sheds light on the processes of capitalist competition and points to a source of instability for capitalist economies.     

The Monetization of Profits in a Monetary Circuit Framework

Abstract

This paper offers an explanation of the realization of profits in money. Following Edward Nell's lead, we place Marx's spheres of production and circulation at the centre of the analysis. Production is represented à la Sraffa–von Neumann while circulation is analysed following the basic insights of the Franco-Italian theory of the monetary circuit. Once production has taken place, money is created by banks ex nihilo and then circulates through certain channels allowing the reproduction of the system and monetizing profits plus the payment of interest on long-term debts within one single circuit. The novelty of our approach lies in the treatment of the financing of investment in fixed capacity.     

The Counterfactual Method of Marx's Theory of Surplus

The aim of this paper is to show that Marx supports his theory of surplus value by developing a counterfactual argument, that is, by comparing the 'normal' state of a capitalist economy against a hypothetical state in which no surplus is produced. Marx then divides his analysis of value into three successive steps. The first deals with the production of new value in the sphere of production; the second with the process of creation of surplus value, both in the sphere of production and in the sphere of circulation; and the third with the process of equalisation of the rate of profit, which is accomplished via capitalist competition in the sphere of circulation. The paper proposes a formalisation of the three-step analysis and of the counterfactual argument. Marx's three-step analysis is shown to be a scientific analysis of the hidden connections between social relations (expressed in labour flows) and commodity exchange; thus it is not a useless detour.     

Why Marx Neither Has Nor Needs a Commodity Theory of Money

This paper argues, contrary to the standard interpretation, that money in Marx's theory is tied neither to bullion nor to any commodity basis. It is rather the sole social form of value autonomous from use-value. This is demonstrated by reference to Marx's account of the social functions of money, and by showing that to subsume 'money' under 'commodity' commits a category mistake within Marx's system. My argument is conceptual rather than historical. It seeks to locate, not to deny, the role of 'gold' in Marx's monetary theory. It has relevance to contemporary debates about the need for some new 'gold-standard' to sustain the international monetary system.     

Awkward Classes and India's Development

ABSTRACT

Marx's model of capital and labour, dynamised by contradictions and the compulsion to accumulate, leaves deviations from the polar classes of capital and labour ignored, regarded as outliers or as headed for extinction. But the two considered here, petty commodity production (and trade and services) and merchant’s or commercial capital, persist widely. Here, their structure and dynamics are discussed in general and in the contemporary Indian case. They are argued to be ‘awkward’, both analytically and politically. Petty production overlaps with both wage-labour and small capitalist firms; it reproduces and expands by multiplication, not accumulation; it does not mobilise in a politically coherent way. Commercial capital is in turn suffused with productive activity; it encompasses petty trade and accumulating enterprises that pursue a reactive opportunistic politics that preserves their independence. Further awkwardness results from the disjuncture between analytically useful categories and the policy concepts used by the state.     

The Emergence of Money in Commodity Exchange,or Money as Monopolist of the Ability to Buy

Abstract

Money's emergence in commodity exchange remains an unresolved issue within economic theory. Current general equilibrium models offer an explanation that rests on the economic advantages of a universally accepted means of exchange that is partly established through social custom. These models neither fully explain money's unique ability to buy, nor theorise the customary practices required for money's emergence. They are dominated by Menger's earlier analysis of money's emergence, which pays more attention to the social foundations of money but is still hampered by Austrian individualism. An alternative explanation is given here, drawing on Marx's theory of value but involving a thorough reworking of it. An analytical process is established through which money finally emerges as monopolist of the ability to buy. Particular social custom, whose determinants are consistent with the social underpinnings of commodity exchange, plays a vital role in money's emergence.     

Joan Robinson as a teacher

Sraffa's construct, the standard commodity, responds to Ricardo's search for an ‘invariable’ measure of value, since it is a measurement unit invariant to changes in distribution. But Sraffa suggests that there is no ‘counterpart,’ no analogous search or needed construct, for the ‘problem’ of ‘difference’ as distinct from change (‘why two commodities produced by the same quantities of labour are not of the same exchangeable value’). Difference in this sense is crucial to Marx, who distinguishes value and surplus-value from capitalist price and profit in part in order to theorize differences as systematic value transfers. In that effort, Marx repeatedly poses commodities and capitals as ‘aliquot parts’ of the whole, so that profit is a redistributed share of aggregate surplus-value. This paper shows that, when Marx's aliquot part imagery is formalized, the resulting hypothetical system represents a meaningful ‘counterpart,’ a construct with a function in Marx's analysis of difference comparable to that of Sraffa's standard commodity in analyzing distributional change. A Marxian ‘standard system’ posing each commodity as an aliquot part of the social capital (a) defines the needed labor-time unit of social account by homogenizing heterogeneous concrete labors as socially average (‘abstract’) labor while simultaneously (b) allowing the derivation of exchange-value (e.g., capitalist production price) on that scale via summation of directly and indirectly embodied labor. Indeed, Marx's approach to production prices as resulting from an inter-industry redistribution of aggregate surplus-value is shown to be algebraically identical to the calculation of labor-embodied under ‘aliquot part’ production conditions.     

The Emergence of the Law of Value in a Dynamic Simple Commodity Economy

Abstract

A dynamic computational model of a simple commodity economy is examined and a theory of the relationship between commodity values, market prices and the efficient division of social labour is developed. The main conclusions are: (i) the labour value of a commodity is an attractor for its market price; (ii) market prices are error signals that function to allocate the available social labour between sectors of production; and (iii) the tendency of prices to approach labour values is the monetary expression of the tendency of a simple commodity economy to allocate social labour efficiently. The model demonstrates that, in the special case of simple commodity production, Marx's law of value can naturally emerge from multiple local exchanges and operate ‘behind the backs’ of actors solely via money flows that place budget constraints on their local evaluations of commodity prices, which are otherwise subjective and unconstrained.     

History,Space and Nature: Building Theory from the Exception

Uneven Development endeavours to derive a theory of uneven geographical development by putting in motion a ‘historical dialogue’ between Marx's critical theorisation of capitalism and the geograhical reality of capitalism at the close of the twentieth century, and by theorising the relations between material nature and the spatial dynamics of capitalist accumulation. The result, however, is a theory of uneven development predicated on a logical rather than a historical conception of capitalism, which furthermore supersedes the question of the production of nature in conceptualising the spatial dynamics of (contemporary) capitalism. This article argues for a re-theorisation of uneven geographical development that considers the production of nature, namely extractive industry, as a point of departure in theorising the spatial dynamics of contemporary capitalist accumulation, focusing briefly on the concentration and centralisation of capital.     

Say’s Law,Marxian Crisis Theory and the Interconnectedness of the Capitalist Economy

ABSTRACT

Scholars have long debated exactly why Marx felt that general gluts were not just possible, but inevitable. This article argues that Theories of Surplus Value anchored that necessity in the complex interconnectedness that characterizes capitalist production. There, Marx’s criticism of Say’s Law builds on a version of crisis theory that begins with raw material shortages in a leading sector. The disturbance is then transmitted through the many inter-industry linkages in the capitalist economy. What starts as a supply-side shock in a leading sector is transformed into a broad crisis of aggregate demand as workers are laid off and businesses fall into insolvency. This article argues that Marx’s later discussion of other types of crises in Capital can be read as consistent with this approach. A severe profit squeeze in a leading sector (whether originating in intermediate good prices, market demand, rising wages or rising use of fixed capital) necessarily turns into a general glut. In this context, Say’s Law becomes an irrelevant theorem concerning an imaginary economy. What Marx sees as fundamentally new under capitalism is not the use of money and the separation of sale and purchase, but massive interconnectedness.     

The modern foundations of Marx's monetary economics

The first chapters of Capital are still often ‘tlerated’, Mirowski (1986: 222) reminds us, as a ‘regrettable metaphysical residuum of [Max's] Hegelian [past]’. Such ‘tolerance’ has unfortunate consequences, howeve, not the least of which is Marx's reputation for ‘theoretical metallism’, simple and derivative. This paper builds on the recent efforts of de Brunhoff (1981), Lavoie (1983) and others to deconstruct, with support from Grundrisse and related texts, the important thrid chapter of Capital, Marx's account of the universal equivalent's four functions. As it is identified here, the chapter's core includes ‘pody-Keynesian’ elements– a reversal of the Ricardian view of the quantity equation, an effective demand principle in which capitalists’ dcisions about the recommitment of hoards assume a prominent role, and the deermination of interest rates, in the short term, on the basis of liquidity preference-– but does not include, in the conventional sense, a commodity theory of money.     

Marx on Ricardo: an explanation of some important misunderstandings

Ricardo's theory of value and distribution is reconstructed by proceeding along the lines of Marx's critique of Ricardo. It is thus an anti-critique of Marx's reading of Ricardo. The chapter ‘On Value’ in Ricardo's Principles is shown to be a consistent and rigorous treatment of the determinants of prices of production. According to Ricardo labor-values merely serve to approximate more elaborate standards of value. Marx's criticism is shown to rest crucially on his own misinterpretation of Ricardo's definitions and presupposes his own – faulty – theory of surplus value. Therefore Ricardo's theory can – contrary to Marx's theory of surplus value – still be regarded as a fruitful complement to Sraffa's model.     

The Dichotomized State

As the radical institutionalist literature attests, in spite of methodological differences Marx and Veblen draw strikingly similar conclusions regarding production, conflict, and alienation in modern life. Here we attempt to contribute to this viewpoint by establishing that similarity in conclusion stems from similarity in approach. After reviewing the existing literature on a Marx-Veblen methodological reconciliation, we briefly review Marx's method, making the mediated starting point the focus of discussion. From this vantage point, we then examine Veblen's own approach to analysis in The Theory of Business Enterprise and the conclusions that emerge as they resemble those of Marx. We maintain that in taking a kindred approach Veblen is able to arrive at an understanding of capitalism in accordance with, and complementary to, Marx's rendering of the inverted nature of economic life in modernity.     

The specificity of manufacturing in Marx's economic thought

Abstract

This article examines Marx's approach to manufacturing and the extent to which manufacturing could be considered to have a special place in Marx's economic thought, especially in relation to accumulation and growth. The important ‘progressive’ features of manufacturing that can be found in Marx's writings and which are discussed here include: division of labour; socialisation of labour; mechanisation; increasing returns to scale; learning-by-doing; technological advancement; and overall, superior potential for cumulative productivity increases. These insights anticipate some of the thinking around the specificity of manufacturing found in twentieth-century structuralist development economics and some heterodox schools of thought such as Kaldorian approaches. This article suggests an interpretation of Marx as having a two-dimensional conceptualisation of activity specificity, with not only sectoral but also ‘technological–organisational’ dimensions, where these two dimensions are not fully independent of each other.     

Screpanti versus Marx on exploitation: a comment

Abstract

Ernesto Screpanti recently claimed to prove that Marx's value theory is logically inconsistent. Jettisoning the value theory, he then reconstructed Marx's theory of exploitation in a manner that supposedly preserves the gist of the original. This note shows that Screpanti's proof of inconsistency is invalid and that his reconstruction contradicts the original theory of exploitation in significant ways, for instance by implying that workers who perform surplus labor can exploit capitalists.     

A Reassessment of Marx's Thought on Labour Exchange

This article reassesses Marx's thought on labour exchange and illuminates its worth. In the Grundrisse and subsequent pre-Capital writings, Marx presented arguments that attached importance to worker subjectivity towards labour performance based on the distinction between labour capacity and labour. This afforded insights into the peculiarities of labour exchange that preclude market determination of wages and other working conditions and necessitate the intervention of class struggle and other socio-political factors in their settlement. The significance of Marx's perspective is further elucidated when compared with the classical tradition and the position of neoclassical economics. Although his emphasis on worker autonomy receded in Capital, his earlier arguments on labour exchange, it is posited, remain highly relevant to understanding industrial relations in today's capitalist economy.     

中央银行在应对经济危机中的作用及局限——马克思的论述及其当代价值

马克思以英格兰银行为例,深入地研究了中央银行在应对资本主义经济危机中的作用,其主要思想可以概括为三个方面。一是中央银行具有国家货币管理机构和信用枢纽的双重性质,这决定了中央银行有应对经济危机的内在职能。二是存在两种货币危机,即货币资本运动引发的"特种危机"和"任何危机的一个阶段"。针对"特种危机",中央银行的应对措施既可能是通过增加货币供给缓解危机,也可能引发货币囤积、信用停滞、金融恐慌,从而使危机形势进一步恶化。三是中央银行无法消除后一种危机,这是由资本主义生产方式一般规律决定的。马克思关于中央银行在应对经济危机中的作用的思想在当代依然具有生命力,对我们理解经济危机、制定相关政策具有重要启示意义。     

Shadow Money in the 19th Century: Is Marx Relevant for Understanding Contemporary Shadow Money?

ABSTRACT

The growth of shadow money, since the 1980s, has implications for both central bank policy and the theorization of money. However, modern shadow money has a historical analogue in the private bill market of 19th century England This article explores the relevance of Marx’s logical and historical analysis of the evolution of the forms and functions of money in capitalist economies, and his concrete analysis of the bill market in order to understand shadow money today.     

Marx's analysis of the falling rate of profit in the first version of Volume III of capital

Abstract

This paper provides an analysis of the Hodgskin section of Theories of Surplus Value and the general law section of the first version of Volume III of Capital. It then considers Part III of Volume III, the evolution of Marx's thought and various interpretations of his theory in the light of this analysis. It is suggested that, as late as the 1870s, Marx had hoped to be able to provide a demonstration that the rate of profit must fall. The main conclusions are that (1) Marx's major attempt to show that the rate of profit must fall occurred in the general law section, (2) Part III does not contain a demonstration that the rate of profit must fall and (3) Marx was never able to demonstrate that the rate of profit must fall and he was aware of this.