Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Transformation Problem and Value-Form: Methodological Comments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Confronting Capitalism in the 21st Century

Abstract

The discussions and debates Marx’s theory of value and especially the so-called transformation problem have been very protracted. The discussion raises many methodological and principal problems. An important starting point is Marx’s outline parsing the value theory in the questions about the substance, measure, and form of value. In the debates some of these aspects are often overestimated to the detriment of others. If the focus is in the form of value, the measure, the substance, and the material conditions of the valorization process are sometimes underestimated. If on the other hand the technical conditions of the process of production are emphasized, the changes and metamorphosis in the form of value is often ignored or neglected. The difficulty is obviously in finding the right path to the synthesis of these various aspects in the theory of value. In this article, some methodological problems are touched, especially those connected with the reproduction schemes and linear production models and the relation of “simultaneous” and “sequential” reasoning as well as with the “monetary” theory of value.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In fact Mühlpfordt formulated simultaneous price equations already in year 1893 in his dissertation, that is before the 3rd Volume of Capital was published (Quaas 2001, 143).

  2. 2.

    The original text is from “Manuscript II” written in 1868–1870. See MEGA II.11, 370. The emphasis in the quotation is according to this original manuscript.

  3. 3.

    Bortkiewicz did not cite the source, but apparently he refers to the Preface of Marshall’s Principles of Economics (Marshall 1890: x) where Marshall for his part referred to Cournot.

  4. 4.

    MEGA II.11, 443–552. Cf. Mori (2012).

  5. 5.

    MEGA II.3.1, 149 (MEW 43, 159). In the original German and English expressions are mixed.

  6. 6.

    Cf. Alcouffe (2005: 161). The author also sees the connection of this sentence in Capital to the mathematical studies of Marx.

  7. 7.

    For example, Glombowski (1983) used differential equations to study this and other problems.

  8. 8.

    “Das Gesammtprodukt A [Konsumtionsmittel] ist gleich der Gesammtrevenue der Gesellschaft. Die Gesammtrevenue der Gesellschaft stellt aber die Summe der Arbeitszeit dar, die sie während des Jahrs dem vorhandnen Capital constant zugesetzt hat”.

  9. 9.

    The so-called new interpretation normalizes the prices with the equation \({\mathbf{py}} = {\mathbf{vy}}\) where p is the price vector. I think that this is the most important contribution of the “new interpretation” making it easy to understand the connection between prices and values and the distributive shares in value and price terms.

  10. 10.

    Also Backhaus has the view that value-producing labor is not measurable, as is either utility (Backhaus 1997: 98). Taylor (2004: 114) has similar views: “abstract labor can have no measure other than money”. He also explicitly writes that “Marxian theories prioritizing production must be abandoned” and that a systematic development of Marxian theory from form to content “is moving away from his labor theory of value”.

  11. 11.

    The translation in MECW 29, 297, is misleading.

  12. 12.

    In this context Heinrich refers analogously also to the effects of ground rent on prices of agricultural commodities and leading to quantitative incongruence with values (Heinrich 2003: 281).

  13. 13.

    Some writers go so far as to declare that prices of commodities determine their value. Therefore, the relation of value and price is turned upside down (see Kay 1999).

  14. 14.

    Haug makes a more precise statement: “This drama of averages forbids counting the factually measurable labor-time as directly value producing” („Jenes Drama des Durchschnitts verbietet es, der Arbeitszeit als faktisch-messbarer unmittelbar Wertbildung zuzurechnen” Haug 2005: 97).

  15. 15.

    In G. Quaas (2001), we find a discussion about the theory of measurement in the context of labor theory of value, or “theory of labor quantities,” as the author defines.

  16. 16.

    True, Marx wrote that “productive power is an attribute of the concrete useful forms of labour” (MECW 35, 56). However, a more general formula of the productivity of labor is amount of use value /abstract labor time—that is we have an amount of use values in the numerator and abstract labor time as the denominator. Productivity as an absolute figure refers always to a specific use value and in this respect, it is also the reciprocal of the labor value of a specific commodity. This idea is implicit in Capital, but not explicitly formulated, although Marx naturally notes the inverse relation of value and labor productivity.

  17. 17.

    The target of this paper is not to comment or solve the whole complex of questions relating to the “monetary” theory of value, or the analysis of value-form or definitions of abstract labor. It is a demanding task when we take into account the different theoretical formulations of Marx himself, the discussions starting from Isaak Rubin in early twentieth century and the writings of contemporary scholars (e.g., discussion in Capital & Class: Bonefeld 2010; Kicillof and Starosta 2011). See also critique of value-form theories by Carchedi (2012: 60–85).

  18. 18.

    In A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy we find also sentence which seems to give some support the “monetary” interpretation of theory of value: “Social labour-time exists in these commodities in a latent state, so to speak, and becomes evident only in the course of their exchange” (MECW 29, 286). But of course, it is too straightforward to see this as proof of theses of the value-form theorists.

  19. 19.

    Some current writers explicitly deny this: “… it makes no sense to talk of commodities having values before they are exchanged, that is of having values before these values are measured” (Kay 1999: 260).

  20. 20.

    It is also important to see, that in the first and second volume of Capital Marx generally assumed the quantitative equivalence of prices and values. This is a feature of the theoretical model and not a statement about the empirical reality. It is not applicable on a more concrete level of analysis.

  21. 21.

    Haug writes of neo-Ricardian conceptions camouflaged as Marxist (Haug 2013: 142). Obviously the critical character of Marxist theory can be lost also in other interpretations, not only in neo-Ricardian studies.

  22. 22.

    Quaas tells about “hostile” attitude toward using mathematics in economic science in the GDR. Sometimes already the mathematic form was labeled bourgeois, vulgar or alien to reality (Quaas 1992: 131). Mathematical tools in economic research were practically banned in Soviet Union in the 1930s (Smolinski 1973).

  23. 23.

    The works of G. Quaas are an example of the possibility of combining a profound mathematical analysis of value theory with philosophical and methodological studies of Capital. Cf. Quaas (1992, 2001, 2016).

References

  • Alcouffe, A. (1985). Marx, Hegel et le “Calcul”. In Les manuscripts mathématiques de Marx. Étude et présentation par Alain Alcouffe. Paris: Économica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcouffe, A. (2005). Économie et Mathématiques das les travaux de Marx. MEGA-Studien 2001 (pp. 142–165). Amsterdam: Internationale Marx-Engels Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcouffe, A., & Wells, J. (2009). Marx, Maths, and MEGA 2 (Unpublished Draft Written to European Society for the History of Economic Thought Conference in Thessaloniki).

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus, H.-G. (1997). Dialektik der Wertform. Untersuchungen zur marxschen Ökonomiekritik. Freiburg: Ça ira Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonefeld, W. (2010). Abstract Labour: Against Its Nature and on Its Time. Capital & Class, 34(2), 257–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortkiewicz, L. v. (1907a). Wertrechnung und Preisrechnung im Marxschen System. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, XXV, 10–51, 445–488 (English translation: Bortkiewicz, Ladislaus von: Value and Price in the Marxian System. International Economic Papers No. 2. London: Macmillan, 1952).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bortkiewicz, L. v. (1907b). Zur Berichtigung der grundlegenden theoretischen Konstruktion von Marx im dritten Band des “Kapital”. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 34, 319–335 (English Translation as an Appendix to Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von: Karl Marx and the Close of His System [P. M. Sweezy, Ed.]. London: Merlin Press, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bródy, A. (1970). Proportions, Prices and Planning: A Mathematical Restatement of the Labour Theory of Value. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carchedi, A. K. G. (2009). The Fallacies of ‘New Dialectics’ and Value-Form Theory. Historical Materialism, 17, 145–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carchedi, G. (2012). Behind the Crises: Marx’s Dialectics of Value and Knowledge. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaz, E. & Velasco, F. (2016). The Transformation of Values into Prices of Production in Marx’s Scheme of Expanded Reproduction. Review of Radical Political Economics, 48, 394–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duménil, G. (1980). De la valeur aux prix de production. Une réinterprétation de la transformation. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, P. (1991). An Introduction to Quantitave Marxism. In P. Dunne (Ed.), Quantitative Marxism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbe, I. (2006). Zwischen Marx, Marxismus und Marxismen: Lesarten der marxschen Theorie. In J. Hoff, A. Petrioli, I. Stützle, & F. O. Wolf (Eds.), Das Kapital neu lesen - Beiträge zur radikalen Philosophie. Münster: Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, D. K. (1986). Understanding Capital: Marx’s Economic Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glombowski, J. (1983). A Marxian Model of Long Run Capitalist Development. Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie, 43(4), 363–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haug, W. F. (2005). Vorlesungen zur Einführung ins “Kapital”. Hamburg: Argument.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haug, W. F. (2013). Das „Kapital“ lesen - aber wie? Materialien zur Philosophie und Epistemologie der marxschen Kapitalismuskritik. Hamburg: Argument.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, M. (2003). Die Wissenschaft vom Wert. Die Marxsche Kritik der politischen Ökonomie zwischen wissenschaftlicher Revolution und klassischer Tradition. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, M. (2004). Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, M. (2009a). Reconstruction or Deconstruction? Methodological Controversies About Value and Capital, and New Insights from the Critical Edition. In R. Bellofiore & R. Fineschi (Eds.), Re-reading Marx: New Perspectives After the Critical Edition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, M. (2009b). Wie das Marxsche “Kapital” lesen? Teil I. Leseanleitung und Kommentar zum Anfang des “Kapital”. Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, M. (2012). An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, M. C., & King, J. E. (1987). Dr Mühlpfort, Professor von Bortkiewicz and the ‘Transformation Problem’. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 11, 265–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorland, G. (1995). Le paradoxes du capital. Paris: Éditions Odile Jacobs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, G. (1999). Abstract Labour and Capital. Historical Materialism, 5(1), 255–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kicillof, A., & Starosta, G. (2011). On Value and Abstract Labour: A Reply to Werner Bonefeld. Capital & Class, 35(2), 295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kliman, A. (2007). Reclaiming Marx’s “Capital”: A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, R. (2006). Wert-Bedeutung: Thesen zur Werttheorie. In J. Hoff, A. Petrioli, I. Stützle, & F. O. Wolf (Eds.), Das Kapital neu lesen – Beiträge zur radikalen Philosophie. Münster: Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laibman, D. (2000). Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New Orthodox Marxism. Science & Society, 64(3), 310–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Likitkijsomboon, P. (1995). Marxian Theories of Value-Form. Review of Radical Political Economics, 27(2), 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics (Vol. I). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martineu, J. (2015). Time, Capitalism and Alienation: A Socio-Historical Inquiry into the Making of the Modern Time. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse. Harmondosworth: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • MECW = Marx, Karl & Engels, Friedrich: Collected Works. London, Different Years.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, R. L. (1956). Some Notes on the “Transformation Problem”. The Economic Journal, 66, 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEGA = Marx, Karl & Engels, Friedrich: Gesamtausgabe. Berlin: Dietz Verlag, Different Years.

    Google Scholar 

  • MEW = Marx, Karl & Engels, Friedrich: Werke. Berlin: Dietz Verlag, Different Years.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mori, K. (2006). Eine dogmenhistorische Dualität in der Reproduktions- und Preistheorie: Georg von Charasoff and Kei Shibata. In Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2006. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mori, K. (2012). Six-Sector Model of Production and Monetary Circuit: Making Sense of Marx’s Original Reproduction Schemata (Discussion Paper No. 278). http://www.econ.tohoku.ac.jp/e-dbase/dp/terg/terg278.pdf.

  • Morishima, M. (1974). Marx’s Economics: A Dual Theory of Value and Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moseley, F. (1998). Marx’s Reproduction Schemes and Smith’s Dogma. In C. J. Arthur & G. Reuten (Eds.), The Circulation of Capital: Essays on Volume Two of Marx’s Capital. Houndmills: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moseley, F. (2016). Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of ‘Transformation Problem’. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mühlpfor[d]t, [Wolfgang] (1896). Karl Marx und die Durchschnittprofitrate. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 65, 92–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postone, M. (1996). Time, Labor and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Critical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaas, F. (1991). Wolfgang Mühlpfordt – ein Vorgänger von Bortkiewicz? Zu den theoretischen Quellen des sogenannten Transformationsproblems. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 208(5), 493–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quaas, F. (1992). Das Transformationsproblem. Ein theoriehistorischer Beitrag zur Analyse der Quellen und Resultate seiner Diskussion. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaas, G. (2001). Arbeitsquantentheorie. Mathematische Grundlagen der Werttheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaas, G. (2016). Die ökonomische Theorie von Karl Marx. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravagnani, F. (2005). A Critical Note on Moseley’s ‘Macro-Monetary’ Interpretation of Marx’s Theory. Review of Radical Political Economy, 37(1), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1974). Marx as Mathematical Economist: Steady-State and Exponential Growth Equilibrium. In G. Horwich & P. A. Samuelson (Eds.), Trade, Stability and Macroeconomics: Essays in Honor of Lloyd A. Metzler. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaikh, A. (1977). Marx’s Theory of Value and the ‘Transformation Problem’. In J. Schwartz & S. Monica (Eds.), The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibata, K. (1933). The Meaning of the Theory of Value in Theoretical Economics. Kyoto University Economic Review, 8, 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolinski, L. (1973). Karl Marx and Mathematical Economics. Journal of Political Economy, 81(5), 1189–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, I. (1978). Marx After Sraffa. London: NLB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stützle, I. (2006). Die Frage nach der konstitutiven Relevanz der Geldware in Marx’ Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. In J. Hoff, A. Petrioli, I. Stützle, & F. O. Wolf (Eds.), Das Kapital neu lesen – Beiträge zur radikalen Philosophie. Münster: Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N. (2004). Reconstructing Marx and Money and the Measurement of Value. In R. Bellofiore & N. Taylor (Eds.), Essays on Volume I of Marx’s Capital. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tugan-Baranowsky, M. (1905). Theoretische Grundlagen des Marxismus. Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Charasoff, G. (1909). Karl Marx über die menschliche und kapitalistische Wirtschaft: eine neue Darstellung seiner Lehre. Berlin: Hans Bond.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winternitz, J. (1948). Values and Prices: A Solution of the So-Called Transformation Problem. The Economic Journal, 58(230), 276–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelený, J. (1972). Die Wissenschaftslogik bei Marx und “Das Kapital”. Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt (Original O Logické Strukture Marxova Kapitálu, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Insurance Institution of Finland, Helsinki, Finland

    Pertti Honkanen

Authors
  1. Pertti Honkanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA

    Marc Silver

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Honkanen, P. (2020). The Transformation Problem and Value-Form: Methodological Comments . In: Silver, M. (eds) Confronting Capitalism in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13639-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation