Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
World revieW of Political economy vol. 10 no. 1 SPring 2019
A CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OVER
MONEY AND TOTALITY
Fred Moseley
Fred Moseley is Emeritus Professor of Economics at Mount Holyoke
College. He taught courses in Marxian Economics, History of Economic
Thought, US Economic History, and Macroeconomics. He has published
numerous articles on Marx’s logical method, especially with respect to the
transformation problem, and his new book Money and Totality: A Macro-
Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the
“Transformation Problem” was published in 2016. Email: fmoseley@
mtholyoke.edu
Abstract: This paper is a reply to David Laibman’s latest paper critical of my 2016 book
Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the
End of the “Transformation Problem.” 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 macro total price to micro
individual prices of production and that this macro-to-micro transformation is logically
coherent, so there is no transformation problem in Marx’s theory of prices of production.
Key words: Marx; macro; monetary; transformation problem
I very much appreciate David Laibman’s continued critical discussion of my book
Money and Totality. Even though we disagree, I think our discussion has been
productive and has helped to clarify the issues; I hope readers will agree. I also
appreciate the willingness of the editors of World Review of Political Economy
(WRPE) to publish this dialogue so that we can go deeper on some of these issues.
104 FRED MOSELEY
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
In this article, I will respond to the following points: did I misstate Laibman’s
position in my previous article?; 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?
First there is a very brief review of the main points of my interpretation.
Macro-monetary Interpretation
There are two main points in my “macro-monetary” interpretation of Marx’s the-
ory and the theory of prices of production in particular:
1. There are two main levels of abstraction in Marx’s theory—the production
of surplus-value in Volumes 1 and 2 (i.e., the determination of the total
surplus-value produced in the economy as a whole) and the distribution of
surplus-value in Volume 3 (i.e., the division of the total surplus-value into
individual parts, first the equalization of the rate of profit across industries
and then the further division of the total surplus-value into commercial
profit, interest, and rent).
The “transformation problem” is usually interpreted (including by Laibman) as
a transformation of individual labor-values to individual prices of production. But
that is not what Marx’s theory of prices of production is about; Marx’s theory is
about the transformation of total prices and total surplus-value to individual prices
of production and the individual parts of surplus-value. The standard interpreta-
tion misses entirely the all-important primary macro aspect of Marx’s theory and
logical method, and the determination of the total surplus-value prior to its distri-
bution. The “transformation problem” is essentially a disaggregation problem, not
a transformation of individual labor-values into individual prices.
2. The logical framework of Marx’s theory is the circuit of money capital,
expressed symbolically as: M – C . . . P . . . C' – M', where M' = M + ΔM.
The general formula for capital focuses Marx’s theory on the most important
phenomenon that Marx’s theory is intended to explain: where does the total
ΔM come from and what determines its magnitude? The quantities of M and
ΔM in this circuit are actual quantities of money capital in all three volumes
of Capital, not hypothetical quantities of money capital in Volumes 1 and 2
(= values) that later would have to be transformed into actual quantities of
M and ΔM in Volume 3.
A CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OVER MONEY AND TOTALITY 105
World revieW of Political economy vol. 10 no. 1 SPring 2019
I argue further that the logical structure of the circuit of money capital suggests
that the actual money capital M advanced at the beginning of the circuit is taken
as given both in the macro theory of the total ΔM and in the micro theory of prices
of production. The initial quantity of money capital M exists as a definite quantity
at the beginning of the circuit, prior to production and the sale of the output, and
this pre-existing quantity of money capital (divided into constant capital and vari-
able capital; M = C + V) is taken as given, as initial data, in both levels of abstrac-
tion. The only difference with respect to C and V in the two levels of abstraction
is the level of aggregation: the total actual C and V are taken as given in the macro
theory of the total surplus-value and the individual quantities of actual C and V are
taken as given in the micro theory of prices of production. Since the same quanti-
ties of C and V are taken as given in both levels, that is why there is no transforma-
tion problem in Marx’s theory; that is, why Marx did not “fail to transform the
inputs”—because no such transformation of the inputs of C and V is necessary or
appropriate in Marx’s theory.
A brief algebraic summary of my interpretation is presented in Section 3 below.
I turn now to a reply to Laibman’s (2018b) latest paper.
1. Misstatement of Laibman’s Position?
The main statement of mine that Laibman (2018b, 411) objects to is the following,
which he quotes on his latest paper:
Laibman argues that Marx’s theory is logically incoherent (the well-known
“transformation problem”) and that Sraffa’s theory is the only coherent theory of
prices and income distribution . . . (Moseley 2018, 149)
My statement was based on the following sentence in Laibman’s previous
paper (which I quoted on my previous paper [Moseley 2018, 159]):
[T]he Sraffa price system . . . is in fact the only coherent account of prices, wages,
and profits on offer in economic theory. (Laibman 2018a, 27; emphasis added)1
If Sraffa’s theory is “the only coherent theory,” then doesn’t it follow that
Marx’s theory must be incoherent?
However, I acknowledge that Laibman argued elsewhere that Marx’s treatment
of the transformation problem is not incoherent, it is just incomplete; and he went
on to discuss the virtues of the iterative interpretation of Marx’s theory, which he
has adopted from Shaikh. I argued in my previous reply that the iterative interpre-
tation does not depend on the labor theory of value because any arbitrary numbers
106 FRED MOSELEY
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
could be substituted for labor-values as the initial prices and the final relative
prices of production and rate of profit would be the same. Prices of production and
the rate of profit in the iterative interpretation depend instead on the physical quan-
tities of inputs and outputs that remain the same in all iterations. Laibman did not
comment in his latest paper on this inessential nature of labor-values in the itera-
tive interpretation of Marx’s theory.
In any case, I sent a draft of this reply to Laibman before submitting it to the
WRPE, in order to make sure that there are no misunderstandings.
2. Methodological Issues
2.1. Logical Priority of the Production of Surplus-Value over the Distribution of
Surplus-Value (i.e., Prior Determination of the Total Surplus-Value)
Laibman objects to my interpretation of the priority of production over distribu-
tion and argues instead that there is a reciprocal relationship between the two.
Laibman argues that production has an “ontological priority” over distribution, but
not a quantitative causal priority, because distribution also affects the quantity of
surplus-value produced.
The main point about the priority of production over distribution in my inter-
pretation (as stated in the passage that Laibman [2018b, 413], quoted from me on
his latest paper) is that within a given period,
the total surplus-value produced in the economy as a whole is determined logically
prior to the division of the total surplus value into individual parts. (emphasis in
the original)
With respect to the determination of the general rate of prot and prices of
production, the logical causal priority of production over distribution means that
the total surplus-value is determined by total surplus labor (S = m Ls), which is
then presupposed in the determination of the general rate of prot (R = S / C+V),
which in turn is presupposed in the determination of prices of production (Pi = Ci
+ Vi + R Mi).
In Chapter 3 of my book, I presented 80 pages of textual evidence from all four
drafts of Capital to support this interpretation of the determination of the total
surplus-value logically prior to its distribution. The direction of logical causation
in all these drafts is clearly and consistently from the total surplus-value to the
individual parts. The distribution of surplus-value in a given period may have an
effect on the total surplus-value in future periods, but in a given period the total
surplus-value is predetermined by surplus labor and presupposed in the theory of
the distribution of surplus-value in that period. Laibman does not dispute any of
A CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OVER MONEY AND TOTALITY 107
World revieW of Political economy vol. 10 no. 1 SPring 2019
this substantial textual evidence. Indeed, in his previous paper Laibman stated that
“the main body of Marx’s thoughts on prices of production is entirely in line with
the MMI interpretation” (2018a, 30; emphasis added).
I also mentioned in my previous reply that the logical sequence from the total
surplus-value to the individual parts follows directly from the labor theory of
value and surplus-value. According to Marx’s theory, all the individual parts of
surplus-value come from the same source—the surplus labor of production work-
ers. Therefore, the total surplus-value must be determined first—by surplus
labor—and then this total surplus-value is divided into the individual parts which
also depend on other factors (such as the equalization of the profit rate). Laibman
also did not respond to this important connection between the labor theory of value
and the prior determination of the total surplus-value.
Laibman also stated,
It should come as no surprise that even a figure of Marx’s intellectual stature
would come to this understanding [reciprocal relation between production and
distribution] by stages, embracing, first, the linear view, and later, with the
maturation of the theory, the complete, interactive view; moreover that the same
progression should appear in his presentation and teaching of his theory. (2018b,
414; brackets added)
But Laibman does not provide any textual evidence to support this speculative
interpretation. Volume 3 of Capital (written in 1864–1865) is the last full draft
of Marx’s theory of the distribution of surplus-value. And it is clearly presumed
throughout Volume 3 that the total surplus-value is presupposed, as determined in
Volumes 1 and 2 (see my book, Moseley 2016, 85–107).
In addition, I have discovered recently that Marx wrote 35 pages in the
Manuscript of 1867–68 (Marx [1867–1868] 2012) on the subject of an extension
of his theory of prices of production to allow for unequal turnover times across
industries.2 An English translation of these 35 pages is in process and will be
published in Historical Materialism.3 These 35 pages begin with the heading:
“Allgmeine Profitrate gegeben” (General rate of profit given). These words are
a succinct expression of the determination of the total surplus-value and the
general rate of profit prior to prices of production.4,5
Even Steedman and other critics of Marx agree that Marx tried to determine the
total surplus-value and rate of profit prior to prices of production, but they argue
that Marx did not succeed because he failed to transform the inputs of constant
capital and variable capital from values to prices of production (see Steedman
1977, 43–45). So that brings us to the second main (and most controversial) point
of my macro-monetary interpretation of Marx’s theory—the monetary part.
108 FRED MOSELEY
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
2.2. Different Starting Points: Money Capital (Marx) vs. Physical Inputs and
Outputs (Sraffa)
Laibman protested,
I must say that I cannot accept the claim that Marx’s method “starts with” money
capital (in contrast to Sraffa, who “starts” with production data). (2018b, 413)
Instead, Laibman argued that Marx’s Chapter 1 is very much like the opening
chapters of Sraffa’s book, and that Sraffa’s Chapter 3 is about
the transition in which the wage share falls from unity and a rate of profit
therefore arises can be seen as posing the question, what is the source of the
ΔM?—the central inquiry of Marx’s Chapters 4 to 6. (2018b, 413)
What I mean by different “starting points” in this discussion is different initial
givens in the two theories. In Marx’s theory of the total ΔM, the initial givens are
the initial quantities of money capital (M) that are advanced at the beginning of the
circuit of money capital (and also the total quantity of current socially necessary
labor-time).Chapter 4 of my book presents 100 pages of textual evidence to sup-
port this monetary interpretation of the initial givens in Marx’s theory. In Sraffa’s
theory of relative prices and the rate of prot, on the other hand, the initial givens
are physical quantities of inputs and outputs (A, x) (and the wage share).
Marx’s Chapter 1 not only derives abstract labor as the substance of value and
socially necessary labor-time as the magnitude of value (in Sections 1 and 2), but
also derives money as the necessary form of appearance of value (in the very impor-
tant but usually neglected Section 3); and this derivation of money lays the ground-
work for the definition of capital as money that becomes more money in Chapter 4
(the title of Part 2 is “The Transformation of Money into Capital”). In striking
contrast, there is no money in Sraffa’s opening chapters, including in Chapter 3
(indeed the word money appears only once in the entire book on page 33). A theory
without money cannot be a theory of ΔM.
Laibman also asks: why is different starting points a problem? It is a problem
because the Sraffian interpretation of the initial givens in Marx’s theory (as physi-
cal quantities) is a misinterpretation of Marx’s theory. And this misinterpretation
of Marx’s logical method results in an erroneous evaluation of the logical consist-
ency of Marx’s theory. After all, the transformation problem has to do with the
logical consistency of Marx’s theory, and thus an evaluation of logical consistency
should be based on a correct understanding of Marx’s own logical method, includ-
ing Marx’s own initial givens (quantities of money capital and labor), not a logical
method that is fundamentally different from Marx’s, with different initial givens
A CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OVER MONEY AND TOTALITY 109
World revieW of Political economy vol. 10 no. 1 SPring 2019
(physical quantities of inputs and outputs). The latter procedure is the theoretical
equivalent of a cop planting evidence on an innocent person and then charging the
innocent person with a crime.
2.3. Is Marx’s Theory “Monetary”?
This question is of course related to the previous section. Laibman also said,
Yes, for reasons of presentation, Marx begins his discussion of the nature and
source of surplus value by setting forth a formula in which money is the visible
starting point: M–C–M'. But to call this a monetary theory is like suggesting that
all printed books are “ink theories,” [!] because the words in which thoughts are
expressed are shown as splotches of ink on paper. (2018b, 414; italicized emphasis
in the original, bold emphasis and brackets added)
I argue that the circuit of money capital is not just a medium or mode of expres-
sion with no theoretical signicance. As discussed above, the circuit of money
capital is the overall logical framework of Marx’s theory of surplus-value (ΔM).
The title of Marx’s book is of course Capital, and the concept of capital is dened
clearly and emphatically in Chapter 4 of Volume 1 (“The General Formula for
Capital”) in terms of money—as money that becomes more money. Marx’s basic
theory of ΔM is presented in Chapter 7 of Volume 1, and he triumphantly expressed
his monetary conclusion as follows:
27 shillings have been turned into 30 shillings; a surplus-value of 3 shillings has
been precipitated. The trick has at last worked: money has been transformed into
capital. ([1867] 1977, 301; emphasis added)
This is the sense in which Marx’s theory is a monetary theory—that the main
phenomenon explained by Marx’s theory is ΔM and the transformation of money
into capital.
3. Is Moseley’s Macro-Monetary Interpretation Logically
Incoherent?
This is the most important issue. The main focus of Laibman’s criticism of the
logical incoherence of my interpretation of Marx’s theory is whether or not the
inputs of constant capital and variable capital are supposed to be (or have to be)
transformed in Marx’s theory of prices of production. This has of course been the
main issue in the long debate over the transformation problem ever since
Bortkiewicz. Laibman summarized his criticisms succinctly as follows:
110 FRED MOSELEY
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
But the conclusion seems inescapable: Moseley’s two-stage story is logically
incoherent, in the following precise sense: it requires us to imagine that (1) input
goods (and therefore goods in general) have two different sets of prices of
production at the same time; (2) input prices are prices of production which means
that no further transformation is either necessary or possible (in which case no
actual illustration of the principles determining prices of production is supplied);
(3) prices of production are formed in a second stage via profit-rate equalization
on the basis of (given) prices of production! (Laibman 2018b, 416–417; italicized
emphasis in the original, bold emphasis added)
My responses to these criticisms are the following:
1. It is not possible according to my interpretation for goods to have two differ-
ent prices of production at the same time. Since the economy is assumed to
be in long-run equilibrium, the prices of inputs = prices of outputs and all
goods have only one price—their long-run equilibrium price. I don’t under-
stand why Laibman thinks to the contrary.
2. Laibman argues that since I assume that the prices of inputs are equal to
prices of production, no transformation of values of outputs into prices of
production is necessary or possible; the transformation has already occurred
and there is nothing left to transform or to explain.
However, Laibman’s argument presumes that the transformation of values into
prices of production is a transformation from one set of micro variables—the val-
ues of individual commodities—to another set of micro variables—the prices of
production of individual commodities.6 But as I discussed above and explained at
length in my book, Marx’s transformation is not from micro values to micro prices
of production, but is instead from macro variables—total price and total surplus-
value in the economy as a whole—to micro variables—prices of production and
average profit in each industry. As stated above, the “transformation problem” in
Marx’s theory is really a disaggregation problem.
If Marx’s transformation is from micro to micro (as Laibman interprets), then
the two micro prices do indeed have to be different to begin with in order for a
transformation to be “necessary and possible.” However, if Marx’s transformation
is from macro to micro (as I have argued), then the micro prices can be the same
at both levels of abstraction—and indeed they are the same—the actual long-run
equilibrium prices of individual commodities in the actual capitalist economy—
and therefore no transformation of the micro prices is necessary or appropriate.
The micro prices are abstracted from at the macro level of abstraction (or one
could say the micro prices are “out of focus” at the macro level of abstraction), and
A CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OVER MONEY AND TOTALITY 111
World revieW of Political economy vol. 10 no. 1 SPring 2019
then the micro prices are determined at the micro level of abstraction (“in focus”).
There is still a transformation to be made in Volume 3, but it is a macro to micro
transformation, not a micro to micro transformation. And the inputs of C and V do
not need to be transformed because the same actual quantities of C and V are taken
as given in both levels of abstraction.
Laibman argues that my interpretation faces an unavoidable “either/or”
dilemma:
Simple logic—not “Marx’s” or “Sraffa’s” or “Moseley’s” or “Laibman’s” logic, just
standard formal logic as such . . . says: either the input prices are prices of
production, in which case there is no “second stage” and the formation of
production prices cannot be illustrated; or they are not. (2018b, 416; emphasis in
the original)
Actually, Laibman’s argument proves the opposite of what he intends. His argu-
ment presumes that the logic of Marx’s transformation is from one set of micro
prices to another set of micro prices. In terms of this micro to micro logic, there is
indeed an “either / or” choice that has to be made. However, I argue that the logic
of Marx’s transformation is not from micro values to micro prices of production
but is instead from macro total prices to micro individual prices, and in terms
of this macro to micro logic there is no “either / or” choice that has to be made.
Therefore, whether or not there is this logical problem in Marx’s theory depends
on one’s interpretation of the logical method of Marx’s theory. It is not a matter of
“simple logic”; rather it is a matter of two different kinds of logic and in particular
two different logical relations between total quantities and individual quantities.
Laibman also claims (in the passage quoted above) that my interpretation sup-
plies “no actual illustration of the principles determining prices of production”
(2018b, 417), but that is not true. I hope I have made it clear in my book (espe-
cially the algebraic summary in Chapter 2) that the principles in my interpretation
that determine the total surplus-value at the macro level and the prices of produc-
tion of individual commodities at the micro level are the following:
AT THE MACRO LEVEL
ΔM = S = P – K (1)
K = C + V C and V given (actual) (2)
P = C + N N = m Lc (3)
S = (C + N) – (C + V)
112 FRED MOSELEY
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
S = N – V = m(Lc – Ln) = m Ls (4)
R = S / (C + V) (5)
All these variables are macroeconomic variables. At the macro level, the prices
of production of individual commodities are abstracted from,
AT THE MICRO LEVEL
Pi = (Ci + Vi) (1 + R) Ci and Vi given (actual)
ΣCi = C
ΣVi = V (6)
At the beginning of the micro level, the determination of the prices of produc-
tion of individual commodities remains to be done and it is accomplished by this
equation.
3. As just explained with the algebra, Marx’s theory of prices of production
is not based on given prices of production but is instead based on given
quantities of money capital—the actual quantities of constant capital and
variable capital that are advanced at the beginning of the circuit of money
capital in each industry (see Ci and Vi in equation 6). The initial quantity
of money capital M exists as a definite quantity at the beginning of the
circuit, prior to production and the sale of the output, and this pre-existing
quantity of money capital (M = C + V) is taken as given, as initial data, in
the theory of prices of production. In other words, prices of production
are determined by given costs (and the predetermined rate of profit).
Many other economic theories in the history of economics have taken
costs as given in order to explain prices (e.g., Smith, Mill, Marshall,
Keynes and modern Post-Keynesians). Marx’s theory takes costs as given
and adds the labor theory of value in order to determine the total surplus-
value and individual prices of production (as expressed above
algebraically).
The fact that the initial givens in Marx’s theory of prices of production are the
actual quantities of C and V advanced at the beginning of the circuit of money
capital in each industry is another reason that the inputs of C and V are not sup-
posed to be transformed—because the same actual quantities of C and V are taken
as given in the prior macro theory of the total surplus-value (e.g., C = ΣCi (actual)).
If the same quantities of money capital are taken as given in both levels of abstrac-
tion, then there is no transformation to be made.
A CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OVER MONEY AND TOTALITY 113
World revieW of Political economy vol. 10 no. 1 SPring 2019
And the actual quantities of C and V, which are taken as given in both levels
of abstraction, are themselves explained in two stages, which I discussed in my
previous paper in this debate—first a partial explanation of the given actual C
and V in the macro level of abstraction (C and V depend primarily, but not
entirely, on the values of the means of production and means of subsistence) and
then a more complete explanation of the given actual C and V in the micro level
of abstraction (C and V also depend on the equalization of the profit rate and are
equal to the prices of production of the means of production and means of subsist-
ence) (Moseley 2018, 153–155). I will not repeat this discussion here, but will
just elaborate on the second stage—the more complete explanation in the micro
level of abstraction.
There are two different meanings of prices of production that need to be clari-
fied. The prices of production of outputs as determined in Chapter 9 of Volume 3
(e.g., the tables) could be better described as total annual industry price—the
total price of all commodities produced in an industry in a year (again see equa-
tion 6). Physical quantities and unit prices are not specified in these tables,
(Moseley 2016, 35).
However, the unit price of production (pi) of each commodity, including
means of production, could be derived by dividing its total price of production
(Pi) (as determined above) by the quantity of annual output produced in each
industry (xi) (pi = Pi / xi).7 If commodity i is used as an input to the production of
commodity j, then the unit price of production of the input i (e.g., a machine)
could then be used to explain in part the actual constant capital that is taken as
given in industry j: Cj = pi xi + . . . ; or if more than one unit of the input i is used
(qij): Cj = pi aij xj + . . . (the “+ . . .” is to indicate other means of production in
the production of good j).
Therefore, it is not true that “prices of production are determined by given prices
of production” in my interpretation. The total annual price of production in an
industry is determined by the given actual annual costs in that industry (Cj + Vj) and
the general rate of profit. And the given actual annual costs in this industry can
eventually be explained as dependent on the unit prices of production of the means
of production that are used in that industry and also on the unit prices of production
of the means of subsistence.
In conclusion, Laibman described my interpretation of Marx’s theory as a
“mess” (Laibman 2018b, 417). I think that this mis-judgment is because he has not
sufficiently understood my interpretation. In particular, he continues to discuss my
interpretation in terms of the standard interpretation of the “transformation” from
micro values to micro prices of production rather than a transformation from
macro total price and total surplus-value to micro prices of production and also in
terms of physical quantities rather than monetary quantities. If my interpretation is
114 FRED MOSELEY
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
correctly understood (macro-monetary), then my interpretation is logically coher-
ent and is a straightforward logical deduction from macro variables to micro vari-
ables, as shown in the algebra above. Marx’s micro theory of prices of production
is logically consistent with his macro theory of the total surplus-value, and indeed
the micro prices of production are derived from the macro theory of the total
surplus-value.
Why continue to impose on Marx’s theory an alien logical method (micro-
micro-physical) that leads to a contradiction, when there is an alternative interpre-
tation (macro-micro-monetary), with substantial textual evidence (as documented
in my book) in which Marx’s theory is logically consistent and there is no trans-
formation problem? Why not the alternative interpretation?
Notes
1. The page number should be “27” instead of “28” in my previous paper (Moseley 2018).
2. This manuscript was published for the first time in German in the MEGA (Volume II/4.3) in 2012
(Marx [1867–1868] 2012).
3. Marx shows, for example, how in industries with longer than average turnover times, the same
amount of capital will produce less surplus-value in a year and thus these industries must receive
a what he called “profit supplement” in order to equalize their rate of profit with the general rate
of profit. And vice versa for industries with shorter than average turnover times. I think this manu-
script will open a new phase in the debate over the transformation problem and Marx’s theory of
prices of production.
4. It is also noteworthy that the cost price k (= c + v) is also taken as given throughout these pages
and k is the same in the determination of both values and prices of production, which also supports
my monetary interpretation of the initial given in Marx’s theory.
5. In his conclusion, Laibman said that my recommendation in my last paper of deeper study of
Marx’s manuscripts is “not helpful” (Laibman 2018b, 418). However, these 35 pages in this
recently published manuscript are a good example of the benefits of studying Marx’s texts; they
provide valuable textual evidence on important questions about Marx’s theory: is the rate of profit
determined prior to prices of production and the distribution of surplus-value? And how is the cost
price determined and does the cost price change in the transformation?
6. This argument also implies that, in order for a transformation to be necessary or possible, the
prices of inputs have to be equal to values (or at least not equal to prices of production) and then
the prices of outputs are transformed into prices of production. But this argument imposes on
Marx the logical error that he has long been accused of making: that input prices are not equal to
output prices! And Laibman makes this a necessary condition for a transformation of values into
prices of production.
7. Marx ([1863] 1977) briefly discussed unit prices in Section 1 of the “Results” manuscript. In this
manuscript, Marx assumes that prices = values, but the point he makes about the determination of
unit prices remains the same after prices of production have been determined—that unit prices of
production for each commodity are determined by dividing the price of production of that industry
(i.e., the gross annual industry revenue) by the quantity of annual output produced.
A CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OVER MONEY AND TOTALITY 115
World revieW of Political economy vol. 10 no. 1 SPring 2019
References
Laibman, David. 2018a. “Money and Totality: Another Round of Debate on Value Formation and
Transformation.” World Review of Political Economy 9 (1): 21–40.
Laibman, David. 2018b. “Which Way Forward for Marxist Value Theory? A Rejoinder to Moseley.”
World Review of Political Economy 9 (3): 410–419.
Marx, K. (1863) 1977. “Results of the Immediate Process of Production.” In Capital, vol. 1, by K.
Marx, 949–1084. New York: Random House.
Marx, K. (1867) 1977. Capital. Vol. 1. New York: Random House.
Marx, K. (1867–1868) 2012. “Ökonomische Manuskripte 1867–68.” In Marx/Engels Gesamtausbage,
Section II, Vol. 4.3, 254–280. Berlin: Dietz.
Moseley, F. 2016. Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital
and the End of the “Transformation Problem.” Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Moseley, F. 2018. “Which Way Forward: Marx’s Theory or Sraffa’s Theory? A Reply to Laibman.”
World Review of Political Economy 9 (2): 148–163.
Steedman, I. 1977. Marx after Sraffa. London: New Left Books.