- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
What Does the Labor Theory of Value Do?
Abstract
This article is a response to two other articles in this symposium by Tiago Camarinha Lopes and David Laibman. The article focuses mainly on the important question that both Camarinha Lopes and Laibman address in their articles: what does the labor theory of value do that other theories cannot do? In other words, what important phenomena of capitalist economies can Marx’s theory based on the labor theory of value explain that other theories, especially Sraffian theory, cannot explain? Sections 1 and 2 discuss Camarinha Lopes’ article, Section 3 discusses Laibman’s article, and Section 4 presents my answer to this important question of what does the labor theory of value do.
Content
Author and article information
References
T. Camarinha Lopes 2013a. “Reviving the Cambridge Controversy by Combining Marx with Sraffa.” World Review of Political Economy 4 (3): 300–322.
T. Camarinha Lopes 2013b. “The Shift from Contradiction to Redundancy in the Critique of the Labour Theory of Value.” International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education 4 (3): 263–273.
T. Camarinha Lopes 2021. “Content-Plurality and Political-Unity in the Debate on the Transformation Problem.” World Review of Political Economy 12 (1): 86–105.
H. D. Kurz, and N. Salvadori. 1995. Theory of Production: A Long-Period Analysis. London: Cambridge University Press.
K. Marx (1867) 1977. Capital, vol. 1. New York: Random House.
F. Moseley 2010. “Critique of Aggregate Demand—Aggregate Supply: Mankiw’s Presentation.” Review of Radical Political Economy 42 (3): 308–314.
F. Moseley 2012a. “A Critique of the Marginal Productivity Theory of the Price of Capital.” Real World Economics Review 59: 131–137.
F. Moseley 2012b. “Mankiw’s Attempted Resurrection of Marginal Productivity Theory.” Real World Economics Review 61: 115–124.
F. Moseley 2015a. “The Marginal Productivity Theory of Capital in Intermediate Microeconomics Textbooks: A Critique.” Review of Radical Political Economy 47 (2): 292–308.
F. Moseley 2015b. “Piketty and Marginal Productivity Theory: A Superficial Application of an Incoherent Theory.” International Journal of Political Economy 44 (2): 105–120.
F. Moseley 2016. Money and Totality: Marx’s Logical Method in Capital and the End of the “Transformation Problem.” Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers.
F. Moseley 2021. “A Marxian Reply to Hahnel: The Relative Explanatory Power of Marx’s Theory and Sraffa’s Theory.” Review of Radical Political Economy 53 (3): 511–524.
F. Moseley Forthcoming. “Criticisms of Sraffian Theory of Money, Fixed Capital, and Turnover Time—A Supplement to: A Marxian Reply to Hahnel: The Relative Explanatory Power of Marx’s Theory and Sraffa’s Theory.” Review of Radical Political Economics: https://mtholyoke.academia.edu/FredMoseley.
D. Nguyen 1982. “Notes on Professor Samuelson’s Analysis of the Marxian Transformation Problems.” Southern Economic Journal 49 (1): 1–10.
L. L. Pasinetti 1977. Lectures on the Theory of Production. London: Macmillan.
P. Samuelson 1970. “The ‘Transformation’ from Marxian ‘Values’ to Competitive ‘Prices’: A Process of Rejection and Replacement.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 67 (1): 423–425.
P. Samuelson 1971. “Understanding the Marxian Notion of Exploitation: A Summary of the So-Called Transformation Problem between Marxian Values and Competitive Prices.” Journal of Economic Literature 9 (2): 341–369.
P. Samuelson 1982. “The Normative and Positive Inferiority of Marx’s Values Paradigms.” Southern Economic Journal 49 (1): 11–16.
P. Sraffa 1960. The Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.