ChapterPDF Available

Les controverses autour du Capital (I) : les débats autour de la loi de la valeur

  • Université Panthéon-Assas, Paris, France
A preview of the PDF is not available
... In England, where Marx was living since 1849, he remained largely unknown during his lifetime. (For more detailed assessments of the reception of Marx's economics, see Howard and King 1989, 1992and Steedman 1995 The theory of value and prices (Rubin 1927(Rubin [1978(Rubin ], 1928(Rubin [1972), especially his 1928 Essays on Marx's Theory of Value (Faccarello 1983b(Faccarello , 2000b for a historical setting of Rubin, see Boldyrev and Kragh 2015). ...
... When the third volume of Capital was published in 1894, the interest centred mainly on Marx's solution to the so-called "transformation problem". (For a detailed history of the controversies, seeDostaler 1978and Faccarello 1983a, 2000b From the standpoint of the neoclassical theory Marx's theory of value and prices was criticized by, among others, Philip H.Wicksteed (1884Wicksteed ( , 1885 andVilfredoPareto (1902). One of the most influential critiques of Marx's pro-cedure for the transformation of values to prices (and of the rate of surplus value to the rate of profits) was Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk's "Zum Abschluß des Marxschen Systems" ["Karl Marx and the close of his system"] (1896 [1949]). ...
This book explores Russian synthesis that occurred in Russian economic thought between 1890 and 1920. This includes all the attempts at synthesis between classical political economy and marginalism; the labour theory of value and marginal utility; and value and prices. The various ways in which Russian economists have approached these issues have generally been addressed in a piecemeal fashion in history of economic thought literature. This book returns to the primary sources in the Russian language, translating many into English for the first time, and offers the first comprehensive history of the Russian synthesis. The book first examines the origins of the Russian synthesis by determining the condition of reception in Russia of the various theories of value involved: the classical theories of value of Ricardo and Marx on one side; the marginalist theories of prices of Menger, Walras and Jevons on the other. It then reconstructs the three generations of the Russian synthesis: the first (Tugan-Baranovsky), the second, the mathematicians (Dmitriev, Bortkiewicz, Shaposhnikov, Slutsky, etc.) and the last (Yurovsky), with an emphasis on Tugan-Baranovsky's initial impetus. This volume is suitable for those studying economic theory and philosophy as well as those interested in the history of economic thought.
Marxists and régulationnists are opposed on the usefulness value theory, especially labour theory of value. We show how régulationnists, that at the beginning were defending labour value theory, have substituated it to a theory of money. We show that the main problem for marxism is the socialization of private labour by market and the fact that Labour Theory of Value has for only object the demonstration of exploitation. After having shown the interest of research program on money, we emphazise some limits of such position, because Orléan and Lordon are developing in fact a theory social construction of use value, especially the lack of pricing theory. We also show that the theory of exploitation and the question of new wealth indicators needs a value theory.
Full-text available
By analyzing the capitalist dynamics at work in the knowledge-based economy, cognitive capitalism has shown that the classical laws of value creation do not hold anymore. Rethinking the laws of value, however, is no easy task. The first section of this paper reconsiders Marx's analysis of value, and demonstrates that Marx struggled by trying to mix two distinct and incompatible conceptions of value: the embodied labour approach and the social analysis of value. The paper argues that the former must be abandoned and that we need to focus only on the latter in order to better understand how value is being produced. To analyze the social production of value in cognitive capitalism, the second part of this paper builds on the case of the global pharmaceutical sector. RÉSUMÉ. En analysant les dynamiques du capitalisme à l'oeuvre dans l'économie de la connaissance, le capitalisme cognitif a montré que les lois classiques de la création de valeur ne tiennent plus. Repenser les lois de la valeur, cependant, n'est pas chose facile. La première section de ce document revient sur l'analyse marxienne de la valeur, et démontre que Marx a lutté en essayant de mélanger deux conceptions distinctes et incompatibles de la valeur : l'approche du travail incorporé et l'analyse sociale de la valeur. Le document fait valoir que la première doit être abandonnée et que nous devons nous concentrer uniquement sur la deuxième afin de mieux comprendre comment la valeur est produite. Pour analyser la production sociale de la valeur dans le capitalisme cognitif, la deuxième partie de l'article s'appuie sur le cas du secteur pharmaceutique.
Refutes the classical and Marxist analysis of prices and competition. Presentation of an intertemporal equilibrium model in a simple formalism; Possibility of locating prices of production and a distributed profit rate in an intertemporal equilibrium; Relationship between prices in intertemporal equilibrium and prices of production. (Из Ebsco)
In his introduction to the first (1956) edition of Studies in the Labour Theory of Value, Ronald Meek made it clear that his intention in writing the book was to convince critics of the intellectual respectability of the theory. The explosion of academic literature on the subject in the 1970s supplied ample proof of his success, and relatively few would now agree with one of those critics, who unwittingly played a significant part in the writing of Meek’s book, that value is ‘just a word’ (Joan Robinson, 1964, p. 47). But the proliferation of books and articles, the reinterpretation of Marx’s arguments and their mathematical reformulation have served also to generate controversy. Assessments of the merits of Marx’s theory of value continue to differ wildly, even the criteria by which the theory is to be judged remaining a source of profound disagreement.