Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND
TOTALITY
Guido De Marco
Guido De Marco is an independent researcher for ARELA (Association for the Redistribution
of Labor), which aims to develop analyses on the transformations as well as the crisis
of capitalism and of welfare state. He holds a Master of Arts in Economics and was also
a PhD candidate in Economics at the New School for Social Research (New York) in 2001.
His recent publications include: “Fred Moseley, Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary
Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the ‘Transformation Problem’”
(Science & Society, 2020); and his book, Marx and the Business Cycle: An Anti-equilibrium
Approach to Capitalist Crisis, is currently under review (Manchester University Press, 2021).
Email: guidodemarco@gmail.com
Abstract: In his macro-monetary interpretation of Marx’s theory of value, Fred Moseley
claims that Marx’s prices of production should be considered as the long-run equilibrium
condition of capital reproduction under the assumption of given technology and given capital
distribution. Moseley’s methodological interpretation depends on the claim that the general
rate of profit is completely predetermined in the first two volumes of Capital. I argue to the
contrary that though Moseley shows the inadequacy of the Standard Interpretation, he fails to
provide a convincing description of Marx’s category of prices of production. The production of
the new total value and total surplus-value cannot be considered as simply determined by the
initial conditions of production; if we want to describe how prices of production are formed
and the role they play in the social reproduction of capital, we should recognize that in social
reproduction this process develops temporally through an intertwined relation between the
production, circulation and distribution.
Keywords: turnover of capital; prices of production; transformation problem; general rate
of profit; temporal single-system interpretation
1. Moseley’s Macro-Monetary Interpretation
Fred Moseley’s magnum opus, Money and Totality, the fruit of 20 years’ study
and work, is representative of a fundamental divide in Marxian literature and
offers an ambitious synthesis of the main new interpretations of Marx’s value
theory since the 1980s. Moseley’s target is mainly the Standard Interpretation of
Marx’s theory of value in the Bortkiewicz–Sweezy–Steedman tradition; in
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 107
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
contrast with this interpretation, he shows that Marx’s theory should not be
charged with inconsistency on the basis of a logical method that is not Marx’s.1
Like other scholars, Moseley rightly argues that the alleged faults ascribed for
over a century to Marx’s transformation of value into prices of production are
unsubstantiated. Marx did not fail to transform constant capital and variable
capital as inputs because “no such transformation of the inputs” is necessary
(Moseley 2016, 223) and his “theory of prices of production is logically coher-
ent and complete” (4).2 However, though Moseley’s arguments suffice to show
the inadequacy of the Standard interpretation, he falls short of providing a full
description of Marx’s category of prices of production. Clearly, the methodo-
logical part of the book is central: I will focus on it.3
According to Moseley, Marx’s “logical method” distinguishes two main levels of
abstraction in the three volumes of Capital. In Volume I and Volume II, Marx devel-
ops the analysis of capital in general (“the most essential properties which are common
to all capitals” (Moseley 2016, 43; emphasis in the original), which determines the
total surplus-value produced (the macro theory); this total is then taken as a “predeter-
mined given” (5) amount in the second level of abstraction (competition or many capi-
tals) concerning the distribution of total surplus-value in Volume III (the micro theory).
This concerns first of all the equalization of gross industrial profit rates across indus-
tries (with the formation of the general rate of profit) and then its division into profit of
enterprise, commercial profit, interest, and rent (Moseley 2019, 104).
Though I agree with several arguments made by Moseley in his controversy
with David Laibman (Laibman 2018a; Moseley 2018; Laibman 2018b; Moseley
2019), I find Moseley’s interpretation requires further development. I will
argue that the production of new total value and total surplus-value cannot be
considered as simply determined by the initial conditions of production because
the social reproduction of capital develops temporally over historical time.
Marx’s “long run,” which concerns this historical evolution, is replaced in
Moseley’s interpretation with an ahistorical equilibrium condition that refers
only to the current period.
In treating the total surplus-value as a given result of Marx’s Volumes I and II
analysis, and especially in interpreting production prices as “equilibrium” prices,
Moseley conveys the misleading idea that the production of value is an accom-
plished process that remains unaffected by circulation and by the distribution of
surplus-value between industries (a point also raised by Laibman [2018b, 414]).
For reasons of space, I will focus on addressing only the general methodological
issues, and on Moseley’s critique of Temporal Single-System Interpretation
(TSSI) scholars (which centers on his claim that inputs enter production at
replacement costs), and I will also address his dispute with Laibman.4
108 GUIDO DE MARCO
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
2. A Short Answer
There is a short answer to the problems that arise from Moseley’s interpretation of
the transformation of values into prices of production: he focuses his attention
only on the ideal final condition eventually reached in the (theoretical) long run,
when all industries’ average rates of profit are already equalized and market prices
oscillate around equilibrium (stable?) prices of production.5 I underscore the term
“equilibrium” because Moseley does not describe this process but only its pre-
sumed final ideal position in the long run: “In the actual [?] capitalist economy,
the long-run equilibrium prices of commodities are equal to their prices of produc-
tion, not to their values” (Moseley 2016, 7; emphasis added). Indeed, Moseley’s
interpretation may be considered a legitimate attempt to describe a static determi-
nation of Marx’s prices of production, in line with what is done by Marx himself
in the famous Chapter 9 of Capital Volume III (Engels’s edition), introducing the
tables so much criticized in the long debate on the transformation of values into
prices of production.6
Unfortunately, Moseley’s generalization of this provisional achievement obscures
the much richer (albeit incomplete) analysis developed by Marx in Chapter 10, when
he further develops the results reached in Chapter 9 (Engels’s edition):
Between those spheres that approximate more or less to the social average there
is again a tendency to equalisation, which seeks a possibly ideal mean position, i.e.,
a mean position which does not exist in reality. In other words, it tends to shape
itself around this ideal as a norm. (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 284; emphasis added)
The reference to a “possibly ideal mean” in this quote exactly specifies an inner
characteristic of the general rate of profit, an average that “does not exist in real-
ity” and is only continuously regenerated by the different industries’ average
rates of profit (as I will argue below) that can only approximate this changing
social average.
On the following page, Marx raises the key question for the formation of the
general rate of profit and the associated prices of production (Marx [1864–1865]
2015, 285): “The really difficult question here is this: how does this equalisation
of profits or this establishment of a general rate of profit take place, since it is
evidently a result and cannot be a point of departure?”
This is the difficult question that Marx raises and Moseley does not address in
his book. Can we assume the existence of periods of reproduction without any
changes in the technological structure of social reproduction? Though for the sake
of a provisional simplification we assumed the existence of such a possibility,
should not we describe at least the transition of the social reproduction from a
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 109
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
period with constant technology to another period of (changed) constant technology?
What does it happen to the prices of production in the meantime? Do they simply
instantaneously change from a level to the next? Should it not be better to recog-
nize that capitalism is characterized by a continuous revolution of the methods of
production (and circulation)? The existence of a continuous, irregular, even if par-
tially accomplished, process of equalization and redistribution of surplus-value
affects methods of production, the productivity of labor, and the process of circu-
lation as well (in turn this latter can be the starting point for innovations in the
process of production).
Is it sufficient to describe the social condition of reproduction of capital in the
long period as if it were characterized by constant average productivity in all
industries (as Moseley does)? Maybe, only as a first approximation. Moseley’s
long period is “logical” or “theoretical” (Laibman 2018b, 416) rather than an
actual “historical” period. I agree with Moseley that it is the alleged logical incon-
sistency of Marx’s theory of value that has been the main ground on which the
debate has developed for a century. However, looking back at this debate from the
results that Moseley and other scholars have reached7 we have to recognize that
this ground has been chosen mainly by non-Marxists (or even Marxists) who were
not able to appreciate that the social reproduction of capital develops temporally
over historical time.
Confining the analysis to the static determination of prices of production is
reasonable as a provisional approximation as long as other fundamental elements
are not lost or obliterated in doing so. Marx develops his analysis at different lev-
els of abstraction, making provisional assumptions that are successively removed
and discussed at lower and more concrete levels. The more abstract levels of anal-
ysis are progressively encompassed with the aim of building the real unity of the
social process of capital reproduction in its historical evolution. Unfortunately,
Moseley does seem to have underplayed this methodological approach.
3. Methodological Issues
Moseley singles out two main separated levels of analysis in Marx’s Capital, the
first, developed in Volumes I and II, devoted to determining the total production
of surplus-value and the second, developed in Volume III, devoted to describing
the distribution of this predetermined surplus-value between capitalists; I find this
description misleading. Indeed, Marx’s method uses, step-by-step, different sim-
plifying assumptions, which he systematically removes when his analysis pro-
ceeds at a lower level of abstraction. In the first page of Marx’s Economic
Manuscript of 1864–1865, Marx explains the need to carry on the work already set
up in the third part of Volume II of Capital:
110 GUIDO DE MARCO
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
We have seen that the production process, considered as a whole, is a unity of the
processes of production and circulation. This point was examined more closely
when we considered the circulation process as a process of reproduction (in
Chapter Four of Book Two).8 <It cannot be the purpose of the present book to make
general reflections on this “unity”. What is necessary is rather to discover and
present the concrete forms [Formen] which grow out of the process of capital,
considered as a whole. (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 49; emphasis added)9
What Marx really does in the first two chapters of this manuscript is to analyze the
mutual impact of the processes of production and circulation—that were provi-
sionally considered in their isolated form in most parts of Volumes I and II—
adding the level of competition and distribution of total surplus-value between
many industrial capitals. In the successive Chapters 4–6, he develops the analysis
of distribution of surplus-value among profit of enterprise (industrial or commer-
cial profit), interest and rent, an analysis that shows the impact exerted by circula-
tion and distribution on the process of production and on the determination of the
new total value and total surplus-value produced.
3.1 The Provisional Assumption of Volumes I and II of Capital
In Volumes I and II, Marx generally assumes that commodities are always
exchanged at their full value because the analysis is focused on the unfolding of
the different forms of value, so that problems of realization through circulation are
left behind, in the backstage of the analysis, as well as those arising from the not
yet developed form of value represented by the price of production (Marx [1890]
1976, 269).10 Successively, Marx removes this assumption and discusses the prob-
lems arising from competition and the distribution of capital between the various
spheres of production.
As long as the analysis is focused only on separate analyses of the production
and circulation of commodities, the divergence between supply and demand can
be assumed as not problematic; this is why Marx could safely maintain the assump-
tion of exchange at value in most of the first and second volumes of Capital,
concentrating his analysis on the pure forms of value relations. However, when in
the end the discussion regards “a whole branch of production,” such an assump-
tion is no longer justified and in the manuscript for Capital Volume III, Marx
reminds us how provisional this assumption was:
As long as we were dealing only with an individual commodity, we could presume
that the need for this specific commodity was already included in the price, without
having to go in any further detail into the quantitative [emphasis in the original]
extent of the need which had to be satisfied. But the quantity is a vital factor, as
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 111
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
soon as we have on the one hand the product of a whole branch of production and
on the other the social need. It now becomes essential to consider the volume,
hence the quantity, of this social need. (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 295; emphasis
added, except where noted)
The quantity then “is a vital factor” and “the quantitative extent of the need which
had to be satised” reveals without any doubt that the double character of labor
does not represent a pure denitional description of two separate features of labor
in the capitalistic mode of production. Abstract labor, labor sans phrase exerted
during the process of production, is not a sufcient condition for its social valid-
ity, use-value is the precondition of its exchange-value, a precondition that also
represents a quantitative bind; abstract labor has to be exerted with the appropriate
measure required by the volume of social need. This appropriate measure cannot
be ascribed only to the efciency with which the process of production is car-
ried out; it is a measure that is also given by the quantitative extent of the social
need that reveals itself, on average, through the commodity purchases in a given
period of time. The same decisive reference to the role of commodity purchases is
repeated a few pages later (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 297) and is again emphasized
in the introduction of Chapter 6 of Marx’s Economic Manuscripts of 1864–1865
(introduction to Part Six of Capital Volume III) devoted to the transformation of
surplus prot into ground-rent, when Marx emphasizes that,
whereas in the case of the individual commodity [its] use-value depends on its
satisfying in and of itself a social need, in the case of the mass social product it
depends on its adequacy to the quantitatively specific social need [emphasis in the
original] for each particular kind of product and therefore on the proportional
division of labour between these various spheres of production in accordance with
these social needs, which are quantitatively circumscribed. (This point should be
introduced in connection with the distribution of capital between the various spheres
of production). (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 733; emphasis added, except where noted)
To argue, as Moseley does, that the total surplus-value is logically predetermined in
Volumes I and II of Capital obliterates the provisional character of Marx’s assump-
tion on the equivalence between value produced and value realized, putting aside the
influence on the formation of surplus-value exerted by the phenomena that intervene
in the processes of circulation and distribution. This consideration is usually neglected
in the debate on the transformation of values into prices of production because it is
assumed that the transformation should be analyzed as an isolated process that should
not consider realization difficulties. However, I believe that this approach is wrong
from a methodological point of view, since it is not so much the realization in itself
112 GUIDO DE MARCO
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
that is problematic, but rather the fact that the redistribution of capital between the
different industrial sectors of the economy changes the process of circulation and this,
in turn, changes the conditions for the reproduction of capital.
According to Marx, the tendency to the equalization of profit rates influ-
ences the conditions of production of total surplus-value that in turn will affect
the actual equalization process. The distribution of capital between the various
spheres of production will change as well, together with the average productiv-
ity, as Marx writes:
Since the general rate of profit is determined not only by the average rate of profit
in each sphere, but also by the distribution of the total capital between the various
particular spheres, and since this distribution is constantly changing, we have again
a constant source of change in the general rate of profit—but a source of change
that also becomes paralysed, in part [emphasis in the original], given the
uninterrupted and all-round character of this movement. (Marx [1864–1865]
2015, 281; emphasis added, except where noted)
Moseley himself recognizes the inuence of the distribution of the total capital and
points out that “The general rate of prot depends in part on the distribution of capital
across industries” (Moseley 2016, 91). On the following page, he repeats, “The aver-
age rate of prot is simply a way of showing the dependence of the general rate of
prot on the distribution of capital across industries” (92), and nally adds “In Volume
III, Marx emphasized this point about the general rate of prot as a weighted average,
in order to highlight the dependence of the general rate of prot on the distribution of
capital across industries” (92). Nonetheless, these correct remarks do not really play
any role in Moseley’s interpretation of Marx’s prices of production.
Moseley emphasizes that the determination of the general rate of profit can be
obtained both as the ratio of total surplus-value to total capital advanced and, in
alternative, as the weighted average of the industries’ average rates of profit, he
then proceeds in his analysis utilizing only the ratio of total surplus-value to total
capital advanced. Though these two results are algebraically equivalent, the
weights of the different industries’ average rates of profit should remind us that
the distribution of capital across industries could change. Nonetheless, Moseley
overlooks this possibility and assumes that the distribution of capital across
industries is also given:
In this formulation of the average rate of profit, the surplus-value produced in
each and every industry is taken as given, as already determined. Hence, in effect
the total surplus-value produced in all industries together is taken as given, and
thus so is the general rate of profit. (Moseley 2016, 92; emphasis added)11
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 113
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
Thus, it is not Marx but Moseley who assumes the total surplus-value as
logically predetermined before the analysis concerning the distribution of capitals
and the determination of prices of production be undertaken.
If Moseley’s interpretation really regarded the formation of the general rate of
profit that takes place in the long run, he should not have considered this rate as a
given, predetermined. If the inputs were those actually advanced at the beginning
of a long period, their prices of production could never have been equal to those of
the outputs, because the process of equalization would have changed the distribu-
tion of capital between the various industries and for the same reason the general
rate of profit could not have been considered as given. Moseley is therefore
describing a static position of “equilibrium” (assuming no changes) and his inter-
pretation leaves unexplored the process of equalization that takes place tempo-
rally, affecting the conditions of production of total surplus-value as well as the
determination of the general rate of profit.
3.2 The Continuity of Reproduction
Of course, while in the way of presentation it is useful to separate the analysis
between different levels of abstraction, this is not true for the description of the
real processes. At a more advanced level the analysis must encompass all the
results reached at higher levels of abstraction, removing the previous, provi-
sional, assumptions. The results of the circulation and production processes ana-
lyzed in Volumes I and II are not considered as given by Marx when he discusses
the process of distribution of gross profit between different industries and when
he discusses, at a lower level of abstraction, the process of distribution between
profit of enterprise, interest, and rent in the manuscript for Volume III of Capital.
The circulation process within each sector cannot fail to be affected by the
changing distribution of capital that results from the equalization process (which
implies a continuous flow of capital between industries with different average
profit rates) (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 313–314); conversely, the latter, in turn,
cannot fail to bring about changes in the circulation process. The two processes
of circulation and distribution are intertwined together; in the same way the
process of production must also be considered intertwined to their development.
It should be sufficient to remind the key distinction between the real and annual
rate of surplus-value made by Marx in Chapter 16 of the second part of Volume
II to realize that the production of the annual surplus-value is affected by the
circulation process.
Furthermore, when Marx describes the circuit of industrial capital in Capital
Volume II, he considers it “not only as the unified process of production and cir-
culation but also a unity of all its three circuits” (Marx [1893] 1978, 183). This
means that there is no way that the three different phases of the circuit of money
114 GUIDO DE MARCO
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
capital could be accomplished successively and in isolation, only one after the
other; Marx emphasizes that each part of the capital advanced goes through one
phase while, at the same time, another part goes through another phase. If it is true
that for each part of the industrial capital advanced by an individual capitalist the
succession of each phase implies that the surplus-value already produced is given
for the subsequent circulation phase (as argued by Moseley), it is also true that in
a given period there is not only one circuit of capital that unfolds its process, the
other parts of the industrial capital advanced also unfold their processes of total
circulation which may be different from each other (throughout the equalization
process). Production and circulation are not only part of a succession of phases,
but they are also contemporary; production and circulation of different parts of
capital advanced unfold together, to guarantee the continuity of reproduction. The
distribution of the total surplus-value is realized throughout the entire period of
reproduction considered and the interplay between the phases of production and
circulation of different but connected parts of capital advanced cannot help but
affect the amount of surplus-value produced. In Moseley’s logical two levels of
interpretation this interaction gets lost.
In his reply to Laibman on the interaction between the conditions of production
and distribution, Moseley argues that there is no evidence in Volume III of Capital
of such an interaction (Moseley 2019, 107). This claim completely puts aside
Chapter 10 and Chapter 18 of Volume III (Engels’s edition), which have explicit
titles (“Equalisation of the General Rate of Profit through Competition. Market
Prices and Market Values. Surplus Profit” and “The Turnover of Merchant’s
Capital. Prices”). For textual evidence see, for example, Marx ([1864–1865] 2015,
295–297) and Marx ([1864–1865] 2015, 415). Indeed, it should be clear that the
process of redistribution of capitals, which seek the best opportunities for their
profit rates, changes the conditions for the reproduction of total surplus-value.
3.3 Two Different Distributions
The other methodological problem that arises in Money and Totality is that
Moseley conflates in one level of distribution two different distributions that Marx
discusses separately. The first one regards the distribution of total gross profit
between industrial capitals; the second one concerns the distribution of this gross
profit among profit of enterprise, interest, and rent. This second level of analysis
is not neutral with respect to the impact on the total surplus-value produced annu-
ally. In fact, Marx emphasizes the role played by the mercantile capital on the
turnover time of industrial capital:
As far as productive [industrial] capital is concerned, its turnover expresses on
the one hand the periodicity of reproduction and therefore depends on the
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 115
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
amount of commodities put on the market over a certain period of time. On the
other hand, the circulation time also forms a limit, even if one capable of
extension, which may have a more or less constricting effect on the formation
of value and surplus-value, because it has an impact on the scale of the
production process. Thus, the turnover exerts its determining function [emphasis
added] on the mass of surplus-value annually produced and therefore on the
formation of the general rate of profit.
The average rate of profit, on the other hand, is a given magnitude as far as
mercantile capital is concerned. Mercantile capital does not have a direct effect
on the creation of profit (surplus-value) and it enters as a determining element
into the formation of the general rate of profit only in so far as it draws its
dividends from the mass of profit that productive capital produces, according to
the proportion that it forms in the total capital. (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 415;
emphasis in the original, except where noted)
Here is stated in plain terms the active function exerted by the turnover time in the
formation of the general rate of profit; it is not the other way around, a given annual
surplus-value spread over the single circuits. Commercial capital or money-dealing
capital cannot create value; however, to the extent that their activities reduce the
circulation time of industrial capital, they allow a shorter period of reproduction and
an increased number of circuits for the capital advanced by the industrial capitalists
and therefore a greater annual surplus-value created by the workforce employed by
these industrial capitalists.
It should be clear that I totally agree with Moseley that Marx argues that the
amount of surplus-value already produced could only be distributed and could not
be changed by its distribution; however, we should also follow Marx’s circular
(and spiraling) description of the process of reproduction, so that the result of each
circuit of capital advanced establishes the new conditions for the following (even-
tually enlarged) circuit. Moseley should recognize that in each period of reproduc-
tion there are distinct circuits for the capitals advanced and these circuits encompass
their circulation times and the distribution of surplus-value produced in each cir-
cuit. These circulation times are obviously affected by the functions developed by
commercial capital and by money capital. Can we assume that these circulation
times are given as well? I do not think so. To assume that circulation time is com-
pletely determined in the second volume of Capital would considerably disrupt
the analysis developed by Marx in the third volume of Capital and would fly in the
face of Marx’s explanation of the roles played by commercial capital and money
capital, so that we would lose the rationale base to understand the functions of the
different forms of capital and their internal conflict.
116 GUIDO DE MARCO
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
3.4 The Assumption of Constant Productivity of Labor
Moseley claims that the prices of production of commodities employed as inputs
and the prices of production of the same commodities obtained as outputs of the
production process are equal, in the case of constant productivity of labor and
given real wage.12 To support his choice to assume constant technology and no
productivity or real wage changes, Moseley argues (2016, 303): “All interpreta-
tions of the transformation problem, including mine and Kliman’s, have assumed
constant technology.” Besides the fact that Kliman does not claim to assume con-
stant technology, this assumption is reasonable only as a first step of analysis. If,
for the sake of simplicity, it may be useful to begin the discussion with an abstract
hypothesis of no technological change, this is not a sufficiently general condition
for demonstrating the validity of Marx’s theory of value.13 Furthermore, from the
assumption of constant technology does not follow constant average productivity
and constant industries’ rates of profit (as I show in the Appendix to this article).
In the case of no technological change, the redistribution of capitals between dif-
ferent industries—for the equalization process—will have an impact on the (indus-
tries’ average) socially necessary labor time (as well as on the turnover times of
capitals) and therefore on the prices of production, so that the general rate of profit
cannot be established ex ante, before the process of equalization develops.
If Moseley does not describe the process of equalization of industries’ average rates
of profit and his description is only the static account of Marx’s prices of production,
why does he need such an assumption? In a particular condition, when prices of pro-
duction of inputs and prices of production of outputs are equal and the industries’
average rates of profit are equalized, why should changes in the productivity of labor
matter? In any moment, productivity is what it is. Its constancy or change does matter
only if there is a dynamic, a historical evolution, that is taken into consideration.
Since this assumption of constancy is apparently superfluous, what is its role in
Moseley’s interpretation? I suppose that this assumption allows the use of the term
“equilibrium.” Then, Moseley seems to argue, if productivity (or real wage) does
not change, there are no reasons why prices of production should change so that
they may be considered equilibrium prices, a long-run rest point. Unfortunately,
Moseley does not provide a description of the process that in the long run should
bring to these “equilibrium” prices of production—this is not his intention any-
way, I suppose— therefore, he does not describe the transformation of values but
only the relations between values already transformed into prices of production.
Since the input and output prices of production are the same, the general rate of
profit in the period is the same as that determined in the previous period; there is
no need for a redistribution of capitals from less remunerative to more remunera-
tive sectors, because the redistribution of total surplus-value can be realized
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 117
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
simply applying the previous general rate of profit. I find this solution unsatisfac-
torily but, differently from Laibman, coherent.14
To be clear, it is not true that assuming constant productivity of labor implies
no change in the general rate of profit during the process of equalization. In the
following section, I will focus my attention on the last example of a misleading
generalization which is related to the differences between the prices of production
of inputs and outputs.
3.5 Replacement Cost Prices
The different evaluation of the prices of production of inputs and outputs and the
different period of reference constitutes the break points between Moseley and
Kliman (and TSSI) interpretations. The former advocates the long-run equilibrium
prices of production while the latter supports a short-run disequilibrium interpre-
tation of Marx’s prices of production. For Kliman, the prices of production of
inputs and outputs change from one period to the other and are going to converge
only under the constraint of simple reproduction; for Moseley, the interpretation is
just the opposite: the initial prices of production of inputs are by definition the
same as the final prices of production of outputs, just because these prices are
considered as long-run equilibrium prices:
I argue that my interpretation of sequential determination does not [emphasis
in the original] assume disequilibrium and instead assumes that the economy
is in a state of long-run equilibrium, and that this is the reason why input prices
are equal to output prices: not because input prices are determined
simultaneously with output prices, but because the economy is in long-run
equilibrium. (Moseley 2016, 324; emphasis added, except where noted)
Indeed, the definition of input prices constitutes a very technical controversy
between Kliman and Moseley; Moseley considers his input prices as a current
(replacement) cost (Moseley 2000, quoted by Kliman 2007, 69–70), while Kliman
argues that in Moseley’s interpretation they should be more precisely consid-
ered as a post-production replacement cost of input (Kliman 2007, 35, 95–105).
I suppose that, somehow, Moseley recognizes that his interpretation can only
describe an ideal condition and this is why he suggests a way to get around it.
Moseley, in fact, considers the possibility that input prices may be different
from output prices, and to get rid of their differences he introduces the caveat
to evaluate input with its replacement cost (what it would cost to replace the
means of production when the output is sold), rather than at its effective price
of production.
118 GUIDO DE MARCO
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
To better understand these alternative interpretations, it may be helpful to
examine a brief example provided by the following passage from Chapter 8 of
Capital Volume I:15
The value of a commodity is certainly determined by the quantity of labour contained
in it, but this quantity is itself socially determined. If the amount of labour-time
socially necessary for the production of any commodity alters—and a given weight
of cotton represents more labour after a bad harvest than after a good one—this
reacts back on all the old commodities of the same type, because they are only
individuals of the same species, and their value at any given time is measured by the
labour socially necessary to produce them, i.e., by the labour necessary under the
social conditions existing at the time. (Marx [1890] 1976, 318; emphasis added)
Of course, the expression “reacts back” cannot be referred to the money antici-
pated in the production of commodities (as Moseley suggests in his book); that
money has been already spent and its magnitude has been already determined,
what is affected is the value of the new commodities that have not been sold yet
(and the raw materials not yet used in the process of production).
Indeed, in Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865, there seems to be sup-
port for what Moseley claims about the evaluation of input prices at their replace-
ment costs; we can read Marx’s argument as follows:
If the price of a raw material rises—cotton for example—the price of cotton goods
rises as well: both semi-finished goods such as yarn, which are produced with
cheaper cotton, and finished products such as cloth, etc. And cotton that has not yet
been worked up, but is still in the warehouse, rises in price, as does the value, finally,
of the cotton that has already entered the process of manufacture. As the
retrospective expression of more labour-time, this cotton adds a higher value to the
product which it enters into as an ingredient than it possessed originally and then
the capitalist paid for it. (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 216; emphasis in the original)
Here Marx is saying, “the capitalist paid,” in the past, a lower value and as a con-
sequence of the “increase in the price of raw material” the value of the finished
goods and semi-finished goods rises as well:
Thus, if an increase in the price of raw material takes place with a significant
amount of finished goods already present on the market, at whatever stage of
completion, the value of these commodities rises and there is a corresponding
increase in the value of the available capital. (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 216;
emphasis added)
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 119
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
At this point Marx clearly specifies that the increase in the price of raw material
has a consequence not only for the value of the finished goods (that rises) but also
for the following process of production that will employ raw material at a higher
price. In fact, the appreciation of finished goods will likely compensate the succes-
sive fall in the rate of profit “that accompanies the raw material’s rise in price”:
This appreciation can compensate the individual capitalist, or the whole of a
particular sphere of capitalist production—even more than compensate
perhaps—for the fall in the rate of profit that accompanies the raw material’s rise
in price. > The same is true for the supplies of raw materials and semi-finished
articles the producer has available to hand, lying in the warehouse. < (Marx
[1864–1865] 2015, 216)
The important point here is not so much that raw materials are evaluated at their
reproduction costs but rather that these costs affect the successive rate of profit.
What the capitalist has paid in the past for raw materials cannot be changed by the
rise in the price of raw material. Furthermore, Marx argues that this evaluation at
the reproduction cost is not a general rule, in fact the previous passage continues
as follows:
Without going into the detailed effects of competition here, we may remark for
the sake of completeness that (1) if there are substantial stocks of raw material in
the warehouse they will counteract the rise in the price of the raw material, and
(2) if the semi-finished or finished goods weigh heavily on the market, they may
prevent the prices of these goods from rising in proportion to the prices of their raw
materials. (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 216; emphasis added)
Each time the stocks of raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods “weigh
heavily on the market,” their price (and of course value) may not rise “in propor-
tion to the prices of their raw materials.” Here Marx brings in his analysis of cir-
culation: the value of what is produced is not necessarily determined only by the
previous condition of production or the new technical conditions of reproduction,
the quantitative determination is also affected by the relation between supply and
demand (the social need backed by money). If this latter is below (or above) the
current supply, the determination of the socially necessary labor time cannot be
considered as completely given before taking into account the process of circula-
tion. This of course does not mean that the process of circulation creates value as
much as the increase in value (eventually) resulting from the re-evaluation of the
value of inputs with the prices of production of the outputs, suggested by Moseley,
does not imply to create value.
120 GUIDO DE MARCO
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
4. Which Way Forward
In his critical comments to Moseley’s book, David Laibman (2018a, 33) makes a
shareable and reasonable remark on the need to “embrace the general possibility
of errors made by Marx,” especially considering the rough nature of his manu-
scripts for Volumes II and III of Capital. This, of course, should be done with a
grain of salt, avoiding repeating the errors made by his predecessors who have
been so thoroughly criticized by Marx himself.
In his book Moseley had already emphasized the limits of starting the analysis
with physical quantities as Sraffa does (Moseley 2016, 10). In his reply to
Laibman’s article Moseley recalls how different Sraffa’s logical method is from
that of Marx (Moseley 2018, 151) and remarks how “the most striking feature of
Sraffa’s framework . . . is the complete absence of money.” Furthermore, Moseley
points out that the so-called iterative method to derive the prices of production,
suggested by Laibman, can use as initial magnitudes “any set of arbitrary num-
bers,” in fact, the “insignificance of the initial magnitudes is one of the character-
istics of using this iterative method to solve a system of simultaneous equations”
(Moseley 2018, 158), with the obvious consequence of voiding the labor theory of
value of any meaning.16
In addition to the agreeable reply made by Moseley on the Sraffian approach, I
would at least mention the distinction between the category of fixed and circulat-
ing capital developed by Marx in the second volume of Capital, where he thor-
oughly criticizes Adam Smith and David Ricardo for the confusion made on the
definition of these categories. Marx shows how the attempt to start from the physi-
cal characteristics of goods leads to being trapped in inevitable contradictions, but
above all he demonstrates that the only way to avoid these contradictions is to use
the money-capital circuit (Marx, Chapters 10 and 11 of Capital Volume II). Any
other approach that assumed as a starting point the physical characteristics of
goods would inevitably encounter the same difficulties.
I mentioned this problem because it is linked to the influence exerted by the
sphere of circulation on the production of the total surplus-value in a given period.
In fact, the role played by commercial capital and money capital modifies the time
of circulation of industrial capital, and therefore the turnover times of the indus-
trial capital advanced, so that the annual rate of surplus-value is affected as well
(even assuming a constant real rate of surplus-value). There is no way that starting
from the physical quantities of goods, as the Sraffian approach does, we can deter-
mine the turnover times of capital.
Given the space constraint, I would like to single out two main points from
Laibman’s articles on Moseley’s book. On the negative side, I disagree with the
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 121
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
charge of inconsistency raised by Laibman against Moseley. At first, Laibman
notices that if the transformation of capital advanced has already been accomplished,
“Marx’s story is literally accurate; there is a single transformation in which the
production-price form of value is determined” (Laibman 2018a, 28–29). He then
underscores one of the main claims of Moseley’s book: “the values of means of
production and the elements of the wage are not transformed, because they are
already transformed: they are already prices of production” (Laibman 2018a, 30;
emphasis in the original). Finally, Laibman criticizes Moseley, who argues that even
though the capitals advanced are values already transformed into prices of produc-
tion there is still a new transformation:
If the constant capital and variable capital elements are based on prices of
production—the rationale for excusing Marx, and the rest of us, from any need to
transform them—then these prices of production must be fully formed at the
outset. But then the pooling-and-redistribution of surplus value, which is the
whole point of the exercise, cannot happen. If the capitalists look, after production,
and see equal rates of profit everywhere, there is no incentive or need to shift
capital from lower to higher rates, and no process of price-of-production
formation can take place; of course, since, as we have been told, the input goods
(both categories) are already at prices of production. But if there is indeed a
pooling-and-redistribution and transformation, then prices change; this
contradicts the original premise that prices (of production) were already in
existence. (Laibman 2018a, 32; emphasis in the original)
If Moseley was claiming to describe in his book the process of redistribution of
capital between industries, Laibman would have been right. On the contrary, I sug-
gest that this is not what Moseley is doing in his book. In this static approach, even
though in the previous period the production prices had already been established,
the need for the transformation of values would still be present, because the pro-
duction of value and surplus-value would still be realized in proportion to the
variable capital employed instead of in proportion to the advanced capital. In this
case, there would be apparently no need for a redistribution of capital between
sectors because in each industry it would be possible to simply apply the previous
rates of profit.
Indeed, I disagree with both Laibman and Moseley, because they share the idea
that prices of production are equilibrium prices. They consider only the final result of
the tendency toward equalization of industries’ average rates of profit, obscuring not
only how this tendency operates but also the contrasting tendency toward disequilib-
rium continuously regenerated by capitalists who introduce innovations for their
122 GUIDO DE MARCO
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
endless pursuit of the highest possible rate of profit. There is no need to assume the
initial existence of prices of production; the money-form of capital advanced is not
bounded to the form of prices of production. Money capital can be advanced without
being the result of values already fully transformed into prices of production. This is
also a logical necessity; if something could not exist without being already trans-
formed, it would make no sense to investigate the process of its transformation.
The second point on Laibman’s articles that I want to point out attains his more
interesting criticism to Moseley (Laibman 2018b, 414; emphasis in the original):
distribution . . . is fundamentally determined by the structures of power between
and within the contending classes formed in the actual process of production.
From this, however, should we conclude that the conditions of distribution have
no effect whatsoever on production or its measurement? That production of
surplus-value and its distribution are rigidly separated, with causal determination
running simply from the former to the latter? Production is fundamentally
determinative of distribution—see the double right-facing arrow in the figure
just below—but with a reverse (secondary) causal chain, represented by the
single left-facing arrow in the figure.
Production Distribution
⇒
←
I agree with this criticism. However, I notice that Laibman is in a contradictory
position since at the same time he argues in favor of the iterative method. On
the one hand, he recognizes the mutual link between production and distribu-
tion; on the other hand, he still devotes his energies to putting forward the
notion of theoretical time, denying, therefore, that the circulation time could
be so real as the production time. He apparently forgets that Marx has already
provided the analysis of circulation time and a clear way to deal with the his-
torical evolution that characterizes the process of reproduction. But then, Lai-
bman should put aside the analysis based on physical quantities in favor of the
analysis based on the circuit of money capital (that Moseley instead takes in
high consideration).
5. Conclusions
It seems to me that Moseley is so concerned with stating that value is produced
only during the production process (and of course I agree with him), that he
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 123
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
overlooks the fact that the circulation process alters the conditions of produc-
tion due to the circularity of the reproduction process. The industrial cycle of
capital encompasses both production and circulation as contemporary phases
that allows for the continuity of its reproduction. From this point of view, there
is not a level of production of surplus-value predetermined in the first two
volumes of Capital followed by its distribution described in the third volume,
because the distribution of surplus-value takes place throughout the entire
period considered and not at the end of it. This distribution does not imply the
“pooling” and then the final redistribution of total surplus-value as suggested
by Laibman, but it implies a flow of industrial capitals which redistributes
them across the different sectors of the economy, as well as implies the remu-
neration of the different forms of capital and of rent, throughout the entire
period; this obviously modifies the circulation times of industrial capitals, the
industries’ average productivity, and the surplus-value produced. Furthermore,
it should always be reminded that the tendency to the equalization of indus-
tries’ average rates of profit is also counteracted by the opposite, contrasting,
tendency toward disequilibrium continuously regenerated by capitalists who
introduce innovations for their endless pursuit of the highest possible rate of
profit; this means that the prices of production cannot be considered as the
results of an ideal condition of equilibrium.
Moseley takes for granted that “competition has to do primarily with the distri-
bution of surplus-value and the division of the predetermined total amount of
surplus-value into particular forms and individual parts” (Marx [1864–1865]
2015, 27). Indeed, leaving aside the process of equalization, claiming that it
regards a lower level of abstraction that regards only the fluctuation of market
prices amounts to leaving aside the entire analysis of competition.17
As well emphasized by Roberto Fineschi (2013), competition is part of a level
of abstraction that is prior to and more abstract than the level that takes into account
the subdivision of surplus-value among its different parts, namely profit of enter-
prise, commercial profit, interest, and rent. What characterizes the level of abstrac-
tion both in Volumes I and II of Capital18 and in the first section (first part) of
Volume III is the absence of the “troubling effects of competition and realization
problems,” “Marx wants first to study how categories work in pure conditions,”
and this is why he adopts two “clauses of abstraction” (Fineschi 2013, 80–81):
1) all produced commodities are sold and all means of production can be
purchased without problems on the market; that is: circulation- and
realization-difficulties are for the moment left out of consideration; 2) it is
124 GUIDO DE MARCO
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
presupposed that surplus-value is not divided into specific and more concrete
forms such as profit or interest or rent, which belong to a more determined
and advanced level.
In the second section (second part) of Volume III, the first clause is dropped and
competition plays a crucial role in how the general rate of profit is formed. Capitals
are considered in their free movement; the investigation is on the dynamic generated
by competition among capitalists within each branch and across branches, because
their rates of profit are no longer assumed as given, and the general rate of profit
becomes result and condition of this dynamic. The distribution realized through
competition does not regard an amount of surplus-value already given; it is a process
that evolves through time with a continuous interplay between the two processes of
production and circulation:
In the circulation process, labour-time is restricted by the circulation time, which
has an impact on the amount of surplus-value that is realised in a specific period.
Other aspects19 > which do not belong to the immediate production process < also
intervene with decisive effect. Both processes (the immediate production process
and the circulation process) constantly run into one other and intertwine, and in
this way their distinguishing features are continuously blurred. (Marx [1864–
1865] 2015, 93; emphasis added)
The equalization process is not, therefore, simply realized through the fluctuation
of market prices that reduce the industries’ average rates of profit to a given gen-
eral rate of profit as claimed by Moseley. The amount of surplus-value realized in
a specific period is affected by the circulation time and “Other aspects > which do
not belong to the immediate production process <.” It is this task that Marxist
scholars need to address developing the studies that have been already put forward
in this direction.
Moseley, together with TSSI’s and SSII’s (Simultaneous Single-System
Interpretation) scholars have disproved the charge of inconsistency that has been
raised against Marx’s theory of value. However, their works have been mainly
on the negative side; this leaves a lot of unsolved issues about the correct descrip-
tion of the process of equalization and the formation of the general rate of profit,
as well as the appropriate description of the dynamics that characterize the social
reproduction of capitalist relations of production. I will bring my contribution in
this direction in a book that is currently under review.
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 125
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
Appendix
I argue that a change in the size of the capital advanced in an industry, as a con-
sequence of a redistribution of capital across industries, might affect the indus-
try’s average rate of profit and its average productivity. I provide a simple
numerical example of how this change may take place (see Table 1). I start from
the given money capital advanced for an industry within which only three capital-
ists (A, B, and C, or three groups of capitalists) operate who employ different
methods of production. The other main hypotheses are the following.
First of all, the value compositions of the money capitals advanced are dif-
ferent to mirror the different methods of production. Capitalist A has a greater
fixed capital compared to the other two and has also less constant circulating
capital and variable capital advanced in proportion (2.000fc + 30cc + 40vc) ·
1.000, whereas the other two are as follows: (1.800fc + 45cc + 56.25vc) ·
1.000; (1.600fc + 50cc + 50vc) · 1.000. Then, I assume that the workforce
employed by the capital with the higher value composition is more efficient;
this means that capitalists with a higher value composition of capital produce
and sell more commodities in proportion. The ratio of constant circulating
capital advanced to variable capital advanced remains the same during the year
(the technology does not change). I finally assume the same rate of deprecia-
tion for all fixed capitals.
I choose the numbers so that the constant and variable circulating capital advanced
by the more efficient capitalist has a greater number of turnovers for its constant and
variable circulating capital advanced. Furthermore, the capitalist more efficient pro-
duces and sells a greater quantity of commodities for each turnover time.
For each industry I determine the real rate and the annual rate of surplus-value,
the individual rate of profit and the average rate of profit, the MELT (the monetary
expression of labor time),20 and the industry’s average productivity.
I present two alternative scenarios for an inflow of new capital by a new capi-
talist (or group of capitalists) adopting capitalist A’s production method, which
has the highest value composition, the greater number of turnovers, and the high-
est rate of profit. In the first scenario, capitalists continue to produce the same
quantity of commodities but reduce their selling price to cope with the increase in
supply, the demand will increase accordingly, and the turnover times will remain
unchanged. In the second scenario, capitalists keep the same selling price and
therefore sell fewer commodities (because given the same price, the industry’s
effective demand has not changed substantially), while the turnover times decrease
accordingly. The result is that in both scenarios the industry’s average productiv-
ity changes although the production methods have not changed.
126
Table 1 Capitals Advanced in an Industry with Different Methods of Production
Capitalists Fixed
capital
advanced
Fixed capital
used up in a
year
Constant
circulating
capital
advanced
(raw
materials)
Variable
capital
advanced
Constant
circulating
capital /
variable
capital
advanced
Capital
advanced
Value
composition
of capital
advanced
Number of
workers
employed
Constant
circulating
capital used
up in a year
Variable
capital used
up in a year
Hourly
wage
b c = b : 10 d e f = d : e g = b + d
+ e
h = (b + d) : e i j k = j : f l
Capitalist A 2,000,000 200,000 30,000 40,000 0.75 2,070,000 50.75 20 360,000 480,000 12
Capitalist B 1,800,000 180,000 45,000 56,250 0.80 1,901,250 32.80 22 500,000 625,000 12
Capitalist C 1,600,000 160,000 50,000 50,000 1.00 1,700,000 33.00 24 550,000 550,000 12
Total 5,400,000 540,000 125,000 146,250 0.85 5,671,250 37.78 66 1,410,000 1,655,000 12
First scenario: increased total supply and reduced selling prices
b c = b : 10 d e f = d : e g = b + d
+ e
h = (b + d) : e i j k = j : f l
Capitalist A 2,000,000 200,000 30,000 40,000 0.75 2,070,000 50.75 20 360,000 480,000 12
Capitalist B 1,800,000 180,000 45,000 56,250 0.80 1,901,250 32.80 22 500,000 625,000 12
Capitalist C 1,600,000 160,000 50,000 50,000 1.00 1,700,000 33.00 24 550,000 550,000 12
Capitalist D 2,000,000 200,000 30,000 40,000 0.75 2,070,000 50.75 20 360,000 480,000 12
Total 7,400,000 740,000 155,000 186,250 0.83 7,741,250 40.56 86 1,770.000 2,135,000 12
Second scenario: similar total supply and unchanged selling price
b c = b : 10 d e f = d : e g = b + d
+ e
h = (b + d) : e i j k = j : f l
Capitalist A 2,000,000 200,000 30,000 40,000 0.75 2,070,000 50.75 20 270,000 360,000 12
Capitalist B 1,800,000 180,000 45,000 56,250 0.80 1,901,250 32.80 22 375,000 468,750 12
Capitalist C 1,600,000 160,000 50,000 50,000 1.00 1,700,000 33.00 24 380,000 380,000 12
Capitalist D 2,000,000 200,000 30,000 40,000 0.75 2,070,000 50.75 20 270,000 360,000 12
Total 7,400,000 740,000 155,000 186,250 0.83 7,741,250 40.56 86 1,295,000 1,568,750 12
127
Capitalists Total
annual
hours
of work
Annual
hours of
work per
worker
Turnover times Cost of
production
in a year
Number of
commodities
produced and
sold in a year
Number of
commodities
produced and
sold per turnover
Productivity
(commodities
produced and sold
per hour of work)
Market value =
Average market price
Total market
value of
commodities
sold in a year
Profit
m = k : l n = m : i o = j : d p = c + j + k q r = q : o s = q : m t u = q ⋅ t v = u - p
Capitalist A 40,000 2,000 12.00 1,040,000 600,000 50,000 15.00 3.0 1,800,000 760,000
Capitalist B 52,083 2,367 11.11 1,305,000 544,444 49,000 10.45 3.0 1,633,333 328,333
Capitalist C 45,833 1,910 11.00 1,260,000 528,000 48,000 11.52 3.0 1,584,000 324,000
Total 137,917 2,089.65 11.28 3,605,000 1,672,444 148,266 12.13 3.0 5,017,333 1,412,333
First scenario: increased total supply and reduced selling prices
m = k : l n = m : i o = j : d p = c + j + k q r = q : o s = q : m t u = q ⋅ t v = u - p
Capitalist A 40,000 2,000 12.00 1,040,000 600,000 50,000 15.00 2.6 1,560,000 520,000
Capitalist B 52,083 2,367 11.11 1,305,000 544,444 49,000 10.45 2.6 1,415,556 110,556
Capitalist C 45,833 1,910 11.00 1,260,000 528,000 48,000 11.52 2.6 1,372,800 112,800
Capitalist D 40,000 2,000 12.00 1,040,000 600,000 50,000 15.00 2.6 1,560,000 520,000
Total 177,917 2,068.80 11.42 4,645,000 2,272,444 198,999 12.77 2.6 5,908,356 1,263,356
Second scenario: similar total supply and unchanged selling price
m = k : l n = m : i o = j : d p = c + j + k q r = q : o s = q : m t u = q ⋅ t v = u - p
Capitalist A 30,000 1,500 9.00 830,000 450,000 50,000 15.00 3.0 1,350,000 520,000
Capitalist B 39,063 1,776 8.33 1,023,750 408,333 49,000 10.45 3.0 1,225,000 201,250
Capitalist C 31,667 1,319 7.60 920,000 364,800 48,000 11.52 3.0 1,094,400 174,400
Capitalist D 30,000 1,500 9.00 830,000 450,000 50,000 15.00 3.0 1,350,000 520,000
Total 130,729 1,520.10 8.35 3,603,750 1,673,133 200,259 12.80 3.0 5,019,400 1,415,650
128
Capitalists MELT
(monetary
expression of
labour time)
Annual
surplus value
Total individual value Real rate of
surplus value
Annual rate of
surplus value
Profit margin
%
Rate of profit Industry's
average rate of
profit
Industry's
average
productivity
Industry's value
composition
of advanced
capital
w = (k + v) : m x = (w - l) ⋅ m y = p + x z = x : k aa = z ⋅ o ab = v ⋅
p
ac = v ⋅
100 : g
ad = v ⋅
100 : g
ae = q : m af = g : e
Capitalist A 409,619.34 1,449,619.34 0.85 10.24 73.08 36.71
Capitalist B 533,358.51 1,838,358.51 0.85 9.48 25.16 17.27
Capitalist C 469,355.49 1,729,355.49 0.85 9.39 25.71 19.06
Total 22.24 1,412,333.34 5,017,333.34 0.85 9.63 39.18 24.90 24.90 12.13 38.78
First scenario: increased total supply and reduced selling prices
w = (k + v) : m x = (w - l) ⋅ m y = p + x z = x : k aa = z ⋅ o ab = v ⋅ p ac = v ⋅ 100 : g ad = v ⋅ 100 : g ae = q : m af = g : f
Capitalist A 284,033 1,324,033 0.59 7.10 50.00 25.12
Capitalist B 369,835 1,674,835 0.59 6.57 8.47 5.81
Capitalist C 325,455 1,585,455 0.59 6.51 8.95 6.64
Capitalist D 284,033 1,324,033 0.59 7.10 50.00 25.12
Total 19.10 1,263,356 5,908,356 0.59 6.76 27.20 16.32 16.32 12.77 41.56
Second scenario: similar total supply and unchanged selling price
w = (k + v) : m x = (w - l) ⋅ m y = p + x z = x : k aa = z ⋅ o ab = v ⋅
p
ac = v ⋅ 100 : g ad = v ⋅
100 : g
ae = q : m af = g : f
Capitalist A 324,866 1,154,866 0.90 8.12 62.65 25.12
Capitalist B 423,003 1,446,753 0.90 7.52 19.66 10.59
Capitalist C 342,914 1,262,914 0.90 6.86 18.96 10.26
Capitalist D 324,866 1,154,866 0.90 8.12 62.65 25.12
Total 22.83 1,415,650 5,019,400 0.90 7.54 39.28 18.29 18.29 12.80 41.56
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 129
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
Notes
1. The book reflects on the contributions of the New Interpretation (now labeled Single-System
Labor Theory of Value) (Foley 1982, 1986, 2000; Duménil 1980, 1983–1984; Duménil and
Foley 2008; Mohun 1994; Lipietz 1982; Glick and Ehrbar 1987), the Temporal Single-System
Interpretation (TSSI) (Kliman and McGlone 1988; McGlone and Kliman 1995; Kliman 2007;
Freeman and Carchedi 1995), Monetary Circuit Theory (Bellofiore 2002, 2004), Shaikh’s itera-
tive interpretation (1977, 1984), Single-System Iterative Interpretation (SSII) labeled by Moseley
as the Rethinking Marxism Interpretation (Wolff, Roberts, and Callari 1982; Wolff, Callari, and
Roberts 1984), the Organic Composition of Capital Interpretation (Fine 1983; Saad-Filho 1993,
1997, 2002; Fine, Lapavitsas, and Saad-Filho 2004). See also (IJPE 2017).
2. As Moseley writes in his introduction to Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865:
Marx did not “fail to transform the inputs” because the inputs (the cost prices) are not sup-
posed to be transformed (as is commonly alleged), but are instead supposed to be the same
magnitude (K) in the determination of both values and prices of production. (Moseley 2015,
15–16; emphasis in the original)
3. Other scholars, mainly from the TSSI camp, have put forward other methodological criticisms;
see, for example, Freeman (2019).
4. The debate on the analysis developed by Moseley in his Money and Totality is still ongoing
and very passionate; I address Moseley’s interpretation after a general reconsideration of Marx’s
transformation of values into prices of production in a forthcoming book.
5. “[I]f the productivity of labor and the real wage remain constant, then prices of production would
also remain constant” (Moseley 2016, 290; italics in the original).
6. I owe the understanding of this aspect to the long discussions I had with Giovanni Mazzetti.
7. Only to mention some Perez ([1980] 2018), Wolff, Roberts, and Callari (1982), Wolff, Callari,
and Roberts (1984), Callari, Roberts, and Wolff (1998); Freeman and Carchedi (1995); Kliman
and McGlone (1988); McGlone and Kliman (1995); Ramos-Martínez and Rodríguez Herrera
(1995); Ramos-Martínez (1998–1999); Kliman (2007).
8. “[This process was examined in Chapter Four of Marx’s 1865 manuscript for what he called
‘Book Two’ of Capital. When Engels published Book Two as Volume II in 1885, this chapter
became ‘Part Three’. Translator.]” (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 49).
9. From the translator’s note of Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865:
Passages of Marx’s manuscript included by Engels in his edition of Capital Volume III are
enclosed by the symbols < and >. Passages that fall outside these brackets were either not
included at all by Engels in the published version, or they were modified by him very sub-
stantially before inclusion. In other words, where a passage begins with > and ends with <
it was either left out by Engels or substantially modified and has been published here for
the first time in its original form. (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, xi)
10. See Bellofiore (2018, 370), Burns (2016, 3), and Fineschi (2013, 80–81).
11. See also Moseley (2016, 90; emphasis in the original):
Marx’s theory of prices of production and the equalization of profit rates is based on
the premise that the general rate of profit itself (to which individual rates of profit are
equalized) is determined logically prior to the determination of prices of production, and
is taken as given in the theory of prices of production.
130 GUIDO DE MARCO
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
12. Actually, this distinction between the prices of commodities employed as inputs and obtained as
results of the production process is not introduced by Marx in Chapter 9 (Engels’s edition). In this
chapter, Marx refers only to total advanced values and total prices of production, right because, I
suppose, he is not yet arrived to include in his analysis market prices that are discussed in Chapter
10, the chapter obliterated by Moseley.
13. Although it can suffice for the rebuttal of the charge of logical inconsistency.
14. Laibman (2018a, 32), more on this below.
15. See also Marx ([1864–1865] 2015, 249).
16. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Laibman, in his introduction to the transformation problem,
instead of summarizing the problem of the Ricardian labor theory of value inherited and tackled
by Marx, simplifies his exposition ruling out the presence of fixed capital and resorts to a model
with only one good (Laibman 2018a, 22–25).
17. The fluctuations of market prices are considered part of “a lower level of abstraction not dealt with
in the three volumes of Capital” (Moseley 2016, 7, note 7).
18. Fineschi (2013, 81, notes 32 and 34) quotes two passages from Volumes I and II of Capital (Marx
[1890] 1976, 710; [1893] 1978, 109). See also Tony Burns (2016, 3) and Tony Smith (2002, 150).
19. For example:
We have seen that the rate of profit, within the production process itself, does not
depend only on the surplus-value but on many other factors besides. It depends, for
example, on the purchase prices of the means of production, on methods that are more
productive than the average, on economizing on constant capital, and so on. And, quite
apart from the price of production, it also depends on the state of the trade cycle, and in
each individual business deal it depends on the greater or lesser cunning and persever-
ance of the capitalist, whether he sells above or below the production price and thereby
appropriates a greater or lesser share of the total surplus-value within the circulation
process. (Marx [1864–1865] 2015, 476; emphasis in the original)
20. In the following table, I determine the MELT with a simple ratio; however, more thorough devel-
opment of this point would require a deeper discussion, see Freeman (2007).
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Fred Moseley for our long and frank discussions on his interpretation of Marx’s theory
of value. I am very much indebted to Alan Freeman, Giovanni Mazzetti, Gabriele Serafini, Mauro
Parretti and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments; I also thank Shuoying Chen for the
thorough editing work she made. I take responsibility for any remaining misunderstandings.
References
Bellofiore, R. 2002. “‘Transformation’ and the Monetary Circuit: Marx as a Monetary Theorist of
Production.” In The Culmination of “Capital,” Essays on Volume III of Marx’s “Capital,” edited
by M. Campbell and G. Reuten, 102–127. London: Palgrave.
Bellofiore, R. 2004. “Marx and the Macro-Monetary Foundation of Microeconomics.” In The
Constitution of Capital: Essays on Volume I of Capital, edited by R. Bellofiore and N. Taylor,
170–210. London: Palgrave.
Bellofiore, R. 2018. “Forever Young? Marx’s Critique of Political Economy after 200 Years.” PSL
Quarterly Review 71 (287): 353–388.
A CRITIQUE OF MOSELEY’S MONEY AND TOTALITY 131
World revieW of Political economy vol. 12 no. 1 SPring 2021
Burns, T. 2016. “Marx, the Labor Theory of Value and the Transformation Problem.” Capital & Class
41 (1): 1–18.
Callari, A., B. Roberts, and R. Wolff. 1998. “The Transformation Trinity: Value, Value Form and
Price.” In Marxian Economics: A Reappraisal. Essays on Volume III of Capital. Volume 2: Profit,
Prices and Dynamics, edited by R. Bellofiore, 43–56. London: MacMillan Press Ltd.
Duménil, G. 1980. De la Valeur aux Prix de Production: Une Reinterpretation de la Transformation
[From Value to Prices of Production: A Reinterpretation of the Transformation Problem]. Paris:
Economica.
Duménil, G. 1983–1984. “Beyond the Transformation Riddle: A Labor Theory of Value.” Science &
Society 47 (4): 427–450.
Duménil, G., and D. Foley. 2008. “The Marxian Transformation Problem.” In The New Palgrave
Dictionary of Economics, vol. 6, edited by S. Durlauf and L. Blume, 405–412. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Fine, B. 1983. “A Dissenting Note on the Transformation Problem.” Economy and Society 12 (4):
520–525.
Fine, B., C. Lapavitsas, and A. Saad-Filho. 2004. “Transforming the Transformation Problem: Why
the ‘New Interpretation’ Is a Wrong Turn.” Review of Radical Political Economics 36 (1): 3–19.
Fineschi, R. 2013. “The Four Levels of Abstraction in Marx’s Concept of ‘Capital.’ Or, Can We
Consider the Grundrisse the Most Advanced Version of Marx’s Theory of Capital?” In In Marx’s
Laboratory: Critical Interpretations of the Grundrisse, edited by R. Bellofiore, G. Starosta and
P. D. Thomas, 71–98. Leiden: Brill.
Foley, D. K. 1982. “The Value of Money, the Value of Labor-Power, and the Marxian Transformation
Problem.” Review of Radical Political Economics 14 (2): 37–47.
Foley, D. K. 1986. Understanding Capital: Marx’s Economic Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Foley, D. K. 2000. “Recent Developments in the Labor Theory of Value.” Review of Radical Political
Economics 32 (1): 1–39.
Freeman, A. 2007. “Time, the Value of Money and the Quantification of Value.” MPRA Paper No.
2217, posted March 18, 2007, UTC, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2217/.
Freeman, A. 2019. “The Inconvenient Problem of Exchange Consistency: Why Moseley’s
Price Interpretation of Marx Is Not a Monetary Interpretation.” https://www.academia.edu/
39088230/TheinconvenientProblemofexchangeconsistencyWhyMoseleyspriceinterpretationof
MarxisnotamonetaryInterpretation.
Freeman, A., and G. Carchedi, eds. 1995. Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics. Aldershot: Edward
Elgar.
Glick, M., and H. Ehrbar. 1987. “The Transformation Problem: An Obituary.” Australian Economic
Papers 26: 294–317.
IJPE (International Journal of Political Economy). 2017. “Mini-Symposium” [on Fred Moseley’s
Money and Totality]. International Journal of Political Economy 46 (1): 1–49.
Kliman, A. 2007. Reclaiming Marx’s “Capital”: A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency. Plymouth:
Lexington Books.
Kliman, A., and T. McGlone. 1988. “The Transformation Non-problem and the Non-transformation
Problem.” Capital & Class 12 (2): 56–84.
Laibman, D. 2018a. “Money and Totality: Another Round of Debate on Value Formation and
Transformation.” World Review of Political Economy 9 (1): 21–40.
Laibman, D. 2018b. “Which Way Forward for Marxist Value Theory? A Rejoinder to Moseley.”
World Review of Political Economy 9 (3): 410–419.
132 GUIDO DE MARCO
WRPE Produced and distributed by Pluto Journals www.plutojournals.com/wrpe/
Lipietz, A. 1982. “The So-Called ‘Transformation Problem’ Revisited.” Journal of Economic Theory
26 (1): 59–88.
Marx, K. (1890) 1976. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1. 4th ed. Translated by B. Fowkes.
London: Penguin Books Ltd/New Left Review.
Marx, K. (1893) 1978. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 2. 2nd ed. Translated by D. Fernbach.
London: Penguin Books Ltd/New Left Review.
Marx, K. (1864–1865) 2015. Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865. Translated by B. Fowkes.
Edited and with an introduction by F. Moseley. Leiden: Brill.
McGlone, T., and A. Kliman. 1995. “One System or Two? The Transformation of Values into Prices of
Production versus the Transformation Problem.” In Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics, edited
by A. Freeman and G. Carchedi, 29–48. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Mohun, S. 1994. “A Re(in)statement of the Labour Theory of Value.” Cambridge Journal of Economics
18 (4): 391–412.
Moseley, F. 2000. “The Determination of Constant Capital in the Case of a Change in the Value of the
Means of Production” https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/PublishedWork.html.
Moseley, F. 2015. “Introduction.” In Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865, edited by F. Moseley,
1–44. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Moseley, F. 2016. Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in “Capital”
and the End of the “Transformation Problem.” Leiden: 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.
Moseley, F. 2019. “A Continuation of the Debate over Money and Totality.” World Review of Political
Economy 10 (1): 103–115.
Perez, M. (1980) 2018. “Valeur et Prix: Un Essai de Critique des Propositions Néoricardiennes” [Value
and Price: A Critique of Neo-Ricardian Claims]. Capital & Class 42 (3): 517–535.
Ramos-Martínez, A. 1998–1999. “Value and Price of Production: New Evidence on Marx’s
Transformation Procedure.” International Journal of Political Economy 28 (4): 55–81.
Ramos-Martínez, A., and A. Rodríguez Herrera. 1995. “The Transformation of Values into Prices
of Production: A Different Reading of Marx’s Text.” In Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics,
edited by A. Freeman and G. Carchedi, 49–76. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Saad-Filho, A. 1993. “A Note on Marx’s Analysis of the Composition of Capital.” Capital & Class
17 (2): 127–146.
Saad-Filho, A. 1997. “An Alternative Reading of the Transformation of Values into Prices of
Production.” Capital & Class 21 (3): 115–136.
Saad-Filho, A. 2002. The Value of Marx: Political Economy for Contemporary Capitalism. London
and New York: Routledge.
Shaikh, A. 1977. “Marx’s Theory of Value and the ‘Transformation Problem.’” In The Subtle Anatomy
of Capitalism, edited by J. Schwartz, 106–139. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing.
Shaikh, A. 1984. “The Transformation from Marx to Sraffa.” In Ricardo, Marx, and Sraffa: The
Langston Memorial Volume, edited by E. Mandel and A. Freeman, 43–84. London: Verso.
Smith, T. 2002. “Surplus Profit from Innovation: A Missing Level in Capital III?” In The Culmination
of “Capital”: Essays on Volume III of Marx’s “Capital,” edited by M. Campbell and G. Reuten,
149–173. London: Palgrave.
Wolff, R., B. Roberts, and A. Callari. 1982. “Marx’s (not Ricardo’s) ‘Transformation Problem’: A
Radical Reconceptualization.” History of Political Economy 14 (4): 564–582.
Wolff, R., A. Callari, and B. Roberts. 1984. “A Marxian Alternative to the ‘Transformation Problem.’”
Review of Radical Political Economics 16 (2–3): 115–135.
