It is argued that the purpose of the Labour Theory of Value is to provide a theory of capitalist exploitation, not a theory of relative prices. As such, the Morishima-type approach to the Steedman critique offers a convincing restatement of the Fundamental Marxian Theorem associating profit with the performance of surplus labour time. By comparison, the Roberts approach involves some strange arithmetic and the importation of a hybrid price/value term which makes it difficult to infer the Fundamental Marxian Theorem.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akyuz, Y. (1983) ‘Value and exploitation under joint production’, Australian Economic Papers, pp. 171–179.
2.
Armstrong, P., Glyn, A. & Harrison, J. (1975) ‘In defence of value: a reply to Ian Steedman’, Capital & Class no. 5, pp. 1–31.
3.
Baumol, W. J. (1974) ‘The transformation of values: what Marx “really” meant (an interpretation)’, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 12, pp. 51–62.
4.
Bortkiewicz, L. von (1907) ‘On the correction Marx's fundamental theoretical construction in the third volume of Capital’, in E. von Bohm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the close of His System, ed. P.M. Sweezy. New York: Kelley, 1966, pp. 199–221.
5.
Morishima, M. (1973) Marx's Economics: A Dual Theory of Value and Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Morishima, M. (1974) ‘Marx in the light of modern economic theory’, Econometrica, vol. 42, pp. 611–632.
7.
Morishima, M. (1976) ‘Positive profits with negative surplus value: a comment’, Economic Journal, vol. 86, pp. 599–603.
8.
Morishima, M. & Catephores, G. (1978) Value, Exploitation and Growth. London: McGraw-Hill.
9.
Okishio, N. (1963) ‘A mathematical note on Marxian theorems’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, vol. 91, pp. 287–299.
10.
Rankin, S. (1979) ‘Steedman, Morishima and Marx's theory of profit’. Mimeograph, University of East Anglia.
11.
Roberts, B. (1987) ‘Marx after Steedman: separating Marxism from “surplus theory”’, Capital and Class, no. 32.
12.
Samuelson, P.A. (1970) ‘The “transformation” from Marxian “values” to competitive “prices”: a process of rejection and replacement’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 67, pp. 423–425.
13.
Samuelson, P.A. (1975) ‘Understanding the Marxian notion of exploitation: a summary of the so-called transformation problem between Marxian values and competitive prices’, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 9, pp. 399–431.
14.
Samuelson, P.A. (1974) ‘Insight and detour in the theory of exploitation: a reply to Baumol’, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 12, pp. 62–70, 75–77.
15.
Steedman, I. (1975) ‘Positive profits with negative surplus value’, Economic Journal, vol. 85, pp. 114–23.
16.
Steedman, I. (1976) ‘Positive profits with negative surplus value: a reply’, Economic Journal, vol. 86, pp. 604–8.
17.
Steedman, I. (1977) Marx after Sraffa. London: New Left Books.
18.
Wolff, R.D., Roberts, B. & Callari, A. (1982) ‘Marx's (not Ricardo's) “transformation problem”: a radical reconceptualization’, History of Political Economy, vol. 14, pp. 564–582.
19.
Wolfstetter, E. (1973) ‘Surplus labour, synchronized labour costs and Marx's labour theory of value’, Economic Journal, vol. 83, pp. 787–809.
20.
Wolfstetter, E. (1976) ‘Positive profits with negative surplus value: a comment’, Economic Journal, vol. 86.
