Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)  

CiNii Article

researchmap

Other Link： http://id.nii.ac.jp/1420/00008751/

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)  

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Publisher：Japan Society of Political Economy  

This paper examines Dumenil and Foley's "New Interpreta-tion(NI)" of Marx's value theory as an interpretation of Capital. We can summarize the NI as follows. First, it bridges the dimensions of labor values and prices by the concept of the "value of money," which is defined as the ratio of aggregate labor time to aggregate money value added. Second, it interprets Marx's value theory as a macroeconomic labor theory and the equality between total value and total price as the net one in a given period. Third, it defines the value of labor power as the money wage multiplied by the "value of money," and argues that exploitation is an issue of the distribution of the net value added between workers and capitalists. Although Dumenil and Foley claim that the NI is just what Marx tried to argue in Capital, Marx's texts and manuscripts of Capital show the opposite. Marx's starting point was to criticize classical economists who explained that wage was a proportion of the net value added and exploitation was a distributional issue. The argument of the NI is totally the same with the one of classical economists. In contrast, Marx argues that the capitalist exploitation is for workers to be absorbed into the circuit of capital whose sole aim is to increase the value. Also Marx points out that variable capital, which is used for wage, is the value that workers created not in the present but in the past. These Marx's arguments show that Marx's value theory is quite similar to the "temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI)." Therefore the orthodox(or Sraffian)interpretation of Marx's value theory and the transformation problem is also invalid as an interpretation of Marx. First, although the orthodox interpretation claims that Marx considers exploitation as an issue of the distribution of labor for production, Marx doesn't. Marx's exploitation theory is constructed based on the concept of the circuit of capital, and it is irrelevant to the distribution of labor for production. Second, although the orthodox interpretation claims that the dimension of the transformation is labor time, such claim is both unrealistic and alien to capitalism. Capitalists'criteria are their rates of profit or amounts of profit, not their "rates of profit" of labor time. There is no reason for such "rates of profit" to be uniformed at least in a capitalist society. Thus we conclude that the most appropriate new interpretation of Marx's Capital is the TSSI.

DOI： 10.20667/peq.51.3_54

CiNii Article

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)  

CiNii Article

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

CiNii Article

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)  

CiNii Article

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)  

DOI： 10.14989/180056

CiNii Article

researchmap

Other Link： http://hdl.handle.net/2433/180056

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

CiNii Article

researchmap