Moseley (2018) offers a partial reply to my review of his Money and Totality, addressing one comment at length while mentioning a second in passing and ignoring the third. In this rejoinder, I respond to his replies and develop the three main arguments of my review in greater detail, with particular focus on the logical consistency of Moseley’s “algebraic summary” of his macro-monetary reading of Marx’s transformation analysis.
Foley, Duncan. 1982. The value of money, the value of labor power and the Marxian transformation problem. Review of Radical Political Economics14 (2): 37–47.
Marx, Karl and FriedrichEngels. 1988 [1861–63]. Collected Works, volume 30. New York: International Publishers.
6.
Marx, Karl and FriedrichEngels. 1989a [1861–63]. Collected Works, volume 31. New York: International Publishers.
7.
Marx, Karl and FriedrichEngels. 1989b [1861–63]. Collected Works, volume 32. New York: International Publishers.
8.
Marx, Karl and FriedrichEngels. 1991 [1861–63]. Collected Works, volume 33. New York: International Publishers.
9.
Marx, Karl and FriedrichEngels. 1994 [1861–63]. Collected Works, volume 34. New York: International Publishers.
10.
Moseley, Fred. 2016. Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the “Transformation Problem.”Chicago: Haymarket Books:
11.
Moseley, Fred. 2018. Commodities as products of capital: A reply to Skillman’s review of Money and Totality. Review of Radical Political Economics50 (4): 708–15.
12.
Skillman, Gilbert L. 2017. Marx’s Capital through the lens of Roemer’s General Theory (and vice-versa). Social Choice and Welfare49 (3–4): 423–43.
13.
Skillman, Gilbert L. 2018. Review of Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the “Transformation Problem” by Fred Moseley. Review of Radical Political Economics50 (3): 620–25.
