Abstract
Steedman rejects the labor theory of value on two grounds: that it says nothing that could not be said better within an alternative theory; and that it has limited generality as compared with the alternative theory.
The first ground is shown to involve a number of errors in reasoning, and it is suggested that the labor theory of value provides a clear basis for Marx's theory of exploitation, shows how exchange depends on labor productivity, and establishes a relation of "reflection" between the exchange of products in the market and the exchange of labors in the process of production. The second ground raises important questions about the possible scope of the labor theory of value. The initial mathematization of the concept of value, which identifies values with employment multipliers, is shown by Steedman's cases to be inadequate for a general theory of prices of production. However, a redefinition of value can and should be pursued.
Steedman's project for a new political economy of capitalism appears more consistent with a conception of socialism confined to the increase of the public sector, the transformation of capitalists into public officials, and the abolition of private rentier income, than with Marx's conception of the dissolution of social classes amid the dissolution of commodity production.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.