Abstract
In his work on value, Marx began in 1847 by recognising economic categories as socially determined and only later introduced abstract labour as a concept. ‘Labour power’ followed even later, along with value as the substance of exchange-value yet distinct from it. Meanwhile, the assumption of a fully capitalist mode of production is made in Capital. This assumption blemishes accumulation of capital as it needs to be understood to include continuing penetration of non-capitalist modes, a concept at the heart of Luxemburg’s legacy in political economy. Since Luxemburg’s work in political economy articulates a problem in Marx’s work, would the conception of value be ‘contaminated’ were we to open it to include the implications of continuing destruction of non-capitalist modes of production?
Work on this topic originated more than a decade ago for several conferences. An early draft, considerably different, was prepared under a distinct title for the Japan Society for Political Economy’s 51st Annual Conference “Political Economy Now - Marxist Reappraisal”, 18-19 October 2003, Musashi University, Tokyo; as well as for Rethinking Marxism’s 5th International Gala Conference “Marxism and the World Stage”, 6-8 November 2003, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. A subsequent draft was prepared for the conference, “Like a Candle Burning at Both Ends: Rosa Luxemburg and the Critique of Political Economy”, 16-18 December 2004, University of Bergamo, Italy. After a long pause, it was then extensively revised for the Workshop on “100th Anniversary of The Accumulation of Capital: A Contribution to an Economic Explanation of Imperialism: A Century-Old Work Remains Current, Provocative and Seminal”, Berlin, March 7-9, 2014 and finally revised for the IIPPE conference “The Crisis: Scholarship, Policies, Conflicts and Alternatives”, Naples, 16-18 September 2014.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Oishi (2001) claims that Poverty of Philosophy is fundamental to understand Marx’s critique of political economy and that it implicitly targets Ricardo in addition to the obvious target of Proudhon. Marx had witnessed the development of private property through litigation surrounding theft of wood from what had been common land. So, according to Oishi, Marx focused thereafter on the essence of private property leading to the importance of estranged labour in his earlier 1844 Manuscripts. In Poverty Marx understands Proudhon as eternalising economic categories in the same way as the classical economists (albeit via a detour), and, for Marx, this represents a contradiction to the actual historical emergence of private property in the then recent times. Having witnessed the emergence of private property in Germany, Marx breaks with such an eternalisation, and thereby with the analytical method used by the classical economists.
Oishi’s primary theme is the continuity and unity of Marx’s thought centred upon the principle of estranged or alienated labour. For Oishi, the importance of alienated labour had been negated by Soviet Marxists and Western followers when, for him, there was no rupture or break in Marx’s own thought as he matures. White (1996), like Oishi, sees little change in Marx’s basic scheme after the emphasis on alienated labor and private property in the 1844 Manuscripts; the later ‘abstract labour’ is little more than a substitution for alienated labour, and ‘surplus value’ a substitution for private property (pp. 146–147; see also p. 199). Unlike Oishi, however, White sees a major shift in Marx’s late thought away from the importance of Hegel. We shall return to White, as we argue major conceptual changes by Marx as his thought evolves. Returning to Oishi (p. 135), he does equate alienated labour to labour under the control of others. How capitalism would be distinguished from slavery is thus not clear.
- 2.
For determining value, Ricardo does not actually refer to labour time, but rather to time and labour: ‘the value of [hunted] animals would be regulated, not solely by the time and labour necessary to their destruction, but also by the time and labour necessary for providing the hunter’s capital, the weapon’ (Ricardo 1821, p. 23). A few pages earlier Ricardo nevertheless cites Smith, for whom labour time seems to be uniquely at stake, favourably: ‘what is usually the produce of two days’, or two hours’ labour, should be worth double of what is usually the produce of one day’s, or one hour’s labour’ (p. 13). Smith, it might be noted, neglected the weapon mentioned by Ricardo.
- 3.
See also Foley (1991) who notes that labour power ‘requires the separation of the direct producers from means of production so that they cannot produce and sell the product of their own labour’ and that ‘the use value of labour power is its capacity to produce value’ (p. 296). Contrast this to (Sinha 1996, p. 207) who writes that the ‘use-value of labour-power happens to be the working activity itself’, or to (Hunt 2002, p. 217) who says that the use-value of labour power is ‘simply the performance of work—the actualizing of the potential labour’. Yet, since working activity or the performance of work occurs in all modes of production, there is no recognition in these sentences by Sinha and Hunt for labour in the abstract as a property of the capitalist relations of production. While a formulation such as Sinha’s or Hunt’s could be thought to find a support in Marx by citing ‘the use-value supplied by the labourer to the capitalist is not, in fact, his labour-power, but its function, some definite useful labour, the work of tailoring, shoemaking, spinning, etc.’; however, it is more easily swallowed if its following sentence is ignored: ‘That this same labour is, on the other hand, the universal value-creating element, and thus possesses a property by which it differs from all other commodities, is something which falls outside the frame of reference of the everyday consciousness’ (Marx 1867a, p. 681).
- 4.
Also, a couple of remarks in Marx (1910):
[T]he specific feature of this commodity [labour-power] is that its use value is itself a factor of exchange value, its use therefore creates a greater exchange value than it itself contained. (p. 280)
The use value of labour-power is labour, the element which produces exchange value... the value which the capitalist receives from the worker in exchange [for labour-power] is greater than the price he pays for this labour. (p. 363, emphasis in original)
- 5.
A comment by E.K. Hunt (2002, p. 282) suggests that the classical labour theory of value originated from the struggle of the industrial capitalist against landlords and merchants, not from within the class character of capitalism itself: commodity prices (setting aside scarce or one-of-a-kind commodities (Ricardo 1821, p. 12)) are determined by quantity of labour. Distinguishing between productive and unproductive labour within the labour theory thus became a weapon of the industrial capitalists against the landlords (even manufacturing capitalists of the time often undertook labour which they could describe as productive).
As capitalism developed in the 19th century, such a theory was no longer useful for bourgeois interests as the struggle against workers rose in importance. So, bourgeois interests found their own solution: dump labour as the creator of the value of commodities. In its place came marginalism and its inaccurate individualism (pp. 283–84) and an abandonment of a class-based political economy. Ricardo’s theory had fulfilled its mission for capital. To drive it further required a transformation of the object of political economy to the interests of the working class.
- 6.
Althusser (1965) has pointed out the significance of this passage, since Engels is describing how Marx revolutionised the theoretical object of classical economics by recognising the relations of production as a concept. Marx’s distinction ‘does not lie in his having claimed or even demonstrated the primacy of production (Ricardo had already done this is his own way), but in his having transformed the concept of production by assigning to it an object radically different from the object designated by the old concept’ (Althusser, p. 170, emphasis in original). Marx saw the importance of the material conditions of production belonging to the concept of production—hence constant capital and variable capital, hence Department I and Department II, hence Marx writing to Engels that he ‘attributed much more importance to the category of use-value’ than his predecessors. Where Smith has reduced wealth exclusively to labour, Marx broke ‘with this idealism of labour by thinking the concept of the material conditions of every labour process and by providing the concept of the economic forms of existence of these material conditions: in the capitalist mode of production, the decisive distinctions between constant and variable capital on the one hand, and between Department I and Department II on the other’ (p. 172, emphasis in original). In turn, this leads to the recognition that the social relations of production must include the material elements of the production process.
Labour power as a concept has been subject to counter-attack. Steedman has a six-page discussion stating that no problem is solved by introducing the concept. Surprisingly, however, his position amounts to no more than an assertion, not a demonstration (Steedman 1982, p. 149). Workers are like land, a fixed resource utilised in production. Although workers are reproduced when obtaining their subsistence needs, thereby permitting them to stay alive and work (for capitalists), Steedman does not consider that their reproduction (survival) requires any production at all. He is followed later by Sinha (1996, pp. 210–213) who refers explicitly to a fixed resource and argues that ‘the market for labor-power does not exist’ (p. 213, emphasis in original).
- 7.
In drafting Theories of Surplus Value, written around 1862, Marx’s chapter ‘Disintegration of the Ricardian School’ cannot be said to introduce this concept, as there is but one use of it within the text: ‘The point of departure in the process of the production and circulation of capital, is the independent form of value which maintains itself, increases, measures the increase against the original amount’ (Marx 1910, p. 318, emphasis is ours).
- 8.
Ranganayakamma (1999, Part I, Chapter 3) provides a straightforward understanding of the value-form, describing it with examples such as the ‘value of the cloth, that did not appear before the exchange [with a coat], appears in the form of a coat’ (p. 81; N.B., the coat, not a value of the coat). Thus, the 1867 Appendix to his first edition gives an example of linen exchanging for a coat, the ‘linen is the commodity which expresses its value in the body of a commodity different from it, the coat’ (1867b, p. 134, emphasis in original). The linen’s value is expressed in a coat, the linen’s value is seen in the coat (while value itself is not seen). In later editions we find that a commodity’s function in consideration of the relative form of value is ‘only provides the material in which the value of the first commodity is expressed’ (1867a, p. 140). And when a material such as gold monopolises a position as universal equivalent, the money-form becomes the general form of value. This reading of the value-form is sustained in Arthur’s (2004) work.
Interpretations of the value-form include works by the Uno school in Japan, specifically, Itoh and Sekine, as well as elsewhere in works by Arthur, Lapavitsas, Reuten, Smith, and Williams. Discussing their works would take us afield with little use for present purposes, except to say that a critique by Weeks (1990) appears consistent with the understanding of the present author: ‘the law of value must derive from the insight that capitalism is primarily a commodity producing society, and only secondarily a commodity exchanging society’ (p. 18, emphasis in original). The value-form seems to drop from any further role for Marx after Part I of Volume I, other than permitting Marx to denominate values and surplus values in pounds sterling, that is, in units of money.
Kliman’s (2000) article, following upon Rubin and Dunayevskaya, relates to the value-form, but with a subtle change. Standing upon a phrase ‘intrinsic value’ used only once by Marx, Kliman says that value is the ‘third thing’ present in each commodity exchanged. Thus, ‘living labour creates value, is the ‘value-forming substance’, while the commodity considered as the container of this labour in objective form, dead labour, is value’. It is not transhistorical but ‘an alienated and fetishistic relation between subject and object’ (pp. 106–7, emphasis in original). By distinguishing value from exchange-value in this manner, Kliman asserts that a domination of dead labour over living labour is thereby expressed—value is contained in dead objects (commodities), having been previously created by living labour. Similar argumentation appears in Dunayevskaya’s conceptual discussion of the organic composition of capital. Her argumentation centres wholly upon her one point: Marx’s concept of alienation ‘broke through all criticism’ of bourgeois society (see Zarembka 2001, p. 360). Marx’s discussion of the value-form is not closely followed, and ‘intrinsic value’ seems offered as a substitute concept.
- 9.
Marx even said in Chapter 1, first edition, fn. 9: ‘when we employ the word value with no other additional determination, we refer always to exchange value’. As this footnote is absent in later editions, Dussel (2001, p. 19, citing himself in 1990) claims that Marx ‘at the very earliest, in 1872, distinguished between “value” and “exchange-value”.’ Yet, how then does Dussel understand Marx’s earlier work on the transformation problem and was not the footnoted sentence left out merely because the Appendix to the first edition was used as the basis for the re-write of Chapter 1 for the next edition?
- 10.
Milios et al. (2002) have argued that Marx’s value concept (and, thus, surplus value) is a monetary one, determined in exchange. Value is only indirectly measurable through its monetary form, through its appearance therein, so that value itself, they say, is conceptually non-measurable: ‘In Marx’s system, value does not belong to the world of empirically detectable (and measurable) quantities; only money does… Exchange value is the sole objective materialisation (form of appearance) of value’ (p. viii and 21, emphasis in original).
While they do not happen to cite the passage, the observation that exchange-value is the sole appearance of value appears very early in Capital: ‘The progress of our investigation will show that exchange-value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed’. To begin, however, ‘we must consider the nature of value independently of its form of appearance’ (Marx 1867a, p. 128). Presumably, therefore, Milios et al., would not be disturbed by the passage which quickly follows regarding the measurement of value:
How, then, is the magnitude of this value [of human labour in the abstract] to be measured? By means of the quantity of the ‘value-forming substance’, the labour, contained in the article. This quantity of labour is measured by its duration and the labour-time is itself measured on the particular scale of hours, days, etc. (p. 129)
Yet, and more significantly, reference to value being associated with labour time is frequent, even past all of Part I of Capital. Where they find that the first half-dozen pages of Capital, Volume I (i.e., Section 1 of Chapter 1) are thoroughly Ricardian and that the next hundred-plus pages of Volume I after Section 1 ‘theoretically recast’ (Milios et al. 2002, p. 17, emphasis in original) those first pages, we find that the measurability of value is sustained throughout Capital. Part II says that the value of labour power ‘is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this specific article’ (p. 274). This passage goes on to illustrate a calculation of the value of labour power, and repeats that ‘the value of every commodity is determined by the labour-time required to provide it in its normal quality’ (p. 277). In Part III, reference is made to ‘determining the value of the yarn, or the labour-time required for its production’ (p. 294). In Part IV, we find ‘the value of labour-power, i.e., the labour-time requisite to produce labour-power’ (p. 297), and the ‘law of the determination of value by labour-time’ (p. 436). In Part V, ‘the value-product in which a day of labour is embodied increases with the length of that day’ (p. 663); etc. We, therefore, cannot follow Milios, et al. in claiming value’s non-measurability for Marx.
- 11.
Kristjanson-Gural (2005) asks whether, for individual commodities, value is solely defined in production prior to exchange, or whether exchange has a role in the determination of value. But his question seems inconsistent with Marx’s conception of value insofar as exchange is a form of value, not a determination thereof.
- 12.
Much of this paragraph and the next are drawn from Zarembka (2009, pp. 64–5).
- 13.
Without concern for penetration of non-capitalist modes of production, Weeks (1982) claimed that without full realisation of all production, Marxist theory of value must be rejected. With a focus on underconsumptionism, he says that ‘if one postulates that a “pure” capitalist system is endemically afflicted by the inability to sell all that is produced, then the Marxian concept of value must be rejected’ (Weeks 1982, p. 61, emphasis in original). Weeks’ argument is addressed in Zarembka (2009, pp. 73–5).
- 14.
The foregoing two paragraphs are borrowed from Zarembka (2009, pp. 66–7), while the next two are borrowed from p. 76.
- 15.
There may be an example in his work that value may fail to be defined clearly by Marx around wage-labour, even if not enough to call Marx’s overall usage of the concept of value into question. Consider the following from his unpublished ‘Results’ (removed by Marx before publication of Volume I):
The distinctive character of the formal subsumption of labour under capital appears at its sharpest if we compare it to situations in which capital is to be found in certain specific, subordinate functions, but where it has not yet emerged as the direct purchaser of labour and as the immediate owner of the process of production, and where in consequence it has not yet succeeded in becoming the dominant force, capable of determining the form of society as a whole. In India, for example, the capital of the usurer advances raw materials or tools or even both to the immediate producer in the form of money. The exorbitant interest which it attracts, the interest which, irrespective of its magnitude, it extorts from the primary producer, is just another name for surplus-value. (Marx 1933, pp. 1022–3, emphasis in original)
- 16.
Baronian (2013) claims that Luxemburg ‘forgets that money is not only the form in which surplus value is realized, but the starting point of the production and reproduction process itself’. The accumulation process, says Baronian, has as its aim ‘money itself as the absolute form of value’ (p. 158). Yet, Luxemburg says regarding Capital, Volume 2 that production of surplus value is, in fact, the underlying focus of Marx’s work:
Volume 2 deals with the process of circulation of capital. The circulation of capital is the total process that capital as a whole goes through. This encompasses the purchase of raw materials, and of means of production, the actual production process itself, and the sale of the goods produced. The circulation process is the entire circuit completed by capital.
Volume 1 deals with the middle phase, which is the decisive one, the most important, because it shows where surplus value comes from. (Luxemburg 2013b, p. 421, emphasis in original)
While much discussion within Part 3 of the second volume of Capital focuses on monetary questions and questions of hoarding, is not Luxemburg correct? Baronian’s second chapter discusses the necessity of money in Marx, but without a clear conclusion. By contrast, Karimzadi (2013) addresses the question of the origin of money over the history of thought in political economy, and is somewhat critical of Marx for failing to get to the bottom of the issue. He does credit Marx with an emphasis on the necessity of exchange occurring in an historical context, while failing to recognise that money is not synonymous with a generally accepted medium of exchange, whether as a commodity such as cattle, gold or silver, or as paper currency mandated by the state. This author has reviewed Karimzadi’s book (see Zarembka 2015b).
Bibliography
Althusser, L. [1965] (1970). The object of capital. In L. Althusser & E. Balibar (Eds.), Reading capital (pp. 71–198). London: New Left Books.
Althusser, L. [1974] (1976). Elements of self-criticism. In L. Althusser (Ed.), Essays in self-criticism (pp. 105–149). London: New Left Books.
Arthur, C. J. (2004). Money and the form of value. In R. Bellofiore & N. Taylor (Eds.), The constitution of capital: Essays on volume 1 of capital, (pp. 35–62). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baronian, L. (2013). Marx and living labour. London/New York: Routledge.
Biernacki, R. (1995). The fabrication of labor: Germany and Britain, 1640–1914. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cleaver, H. [1979] (2000). Reading capital politically (2nd ed.). Leeds/Edinburg: AK Press.
Dussel, E. (2001). The four drafts of capital: Towards a new interpretation of the dialectical thought of Marx. Rethinking Marxism, 13(1), 10–26.
Foley, D. (1991). Labour power. In T. Bottomore (Ed.), A dictionary of Marxist thought (2nd ed., pp. 296–297). Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Hunt, E.K. (2002). History of economic thought (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Karimzadi, S. (2013). Money and its origins. London/New York: Routledge.
Kates, S. (2010). Influencing Keynes: The intellectual origins of the general theory. History of Economic Ideas,, XVIII(3), 33–64.
Kliman, A. J. (2000). Marx’s concept of intrinsic value. Historical Materialism, 6, 89–113.
Kristjanson-Gural, D. (2005). Exchange, demand and the market-price of production: Reconciling traditional and monetary approaches to value and price. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), The capitalist state and its economy: Democracy in socialism, research in political economy (Vol. 22, pp. 137–169). Amsterdam: JAI/Elsevier Science.
Luxemburg, R. [1913] (2015). The accumulation of capital. In The complete works of Rosa Luxemburg: Volume II, Economic writings (Vol. 2). London: Verso.
Luxemburg, R. (1925). Introduction to political economy in Luxemburg 2013a, pp. 89–300.
Luxemburg, R. (2013a). Notes About the Economic Form of Antiquity/Slavery. In P. Hudis (Ed.), The complete works of Rosa Luxemburg: Volume I: Economic writings. London/New York: Verso, pp. 331–338.
Luxemberg, R. (2013b). Practical economics: Volume 2 of Marx’s Capital. In Luxemburg 2013a, pp. 421–460.
Marx, K. [1847] (1975). The poverty of philosophy. In Marx-Engels collected works (Vol. 6, pp. 105–212). New York: International Publishers.
Marx, K. [1859] (1975). A contribution to the critique of political economy. In Marx-Engels collected works (Vol. 29, pp. 257–417). New York: International Publishers.
Marx, K. [1867a] (1982). Capital. A critique of political economy (Vol. I). New York: Penguin Books.
Marx, K. [1867b] (1978). The value-form. Capital and Class 2(1), 130–150.
Marx, K. [1885] (1992). Capital. A critique of political economy (Vol. I1). New York: Penguin Books.
Marx, K. [1905a] (1988). Theories of surplus value, Part I. In Marx-Engels collected works (Vol. 30, pp. 348–451). New York: International Publishers.
Marx, K. [1905b] (1989). Theories of surplus value, Part II. In Marx-Engels collected works (Vol. 31, pp. 6–581). New York: International Publishers.
Marx, K. [1910] (1991). Theories of surplus value, Part III. In Marx-Engels collected works (Vol. 32, pp. 7–545). Nework: International Publishers.
Marx, K. [1930] (1989). Marginal notes on Adolph Wagner’s Lehrbuch der Politischen Oekonomie. In Marx-Engels collected works (Vol. 24, pp. 531–559). New York: International Publishers.
Marx, K. [1933] (1982). Results of the direct production process in Marx [1867c] (1982), pp. 949–1083.
Marx, K. [1939a] (1973). Grundrisse. New York/Toronto: Vintage Books.
Marx, K. [1939b] (1986). Grundrisse. In Marx-Engels collected works (Vol. 28). New York: International Publishers.
Marx, K., & F. Engels [1948] (1983). Letters on capital. London: New Park Publications.
McCracken, H. L. (1933). Value theory and business cycles. Binghamton: Falcon Press.
Milios, J., Dimoulis, D., & Economakis, G. (2002). Karl Marx and the classics: An essay on value, crises and the capitalist mode of production. Hampshire/Burlington: Ashgate.
Mohun, S. (1991). Value. In T. Bottomore (Ed.), A dictionary of Marxist thought (2nd ed., pp. 564–568). Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Oakley, A. (1984). Marx’s critique of political economy: Intellectual sources and evolution (Vol. I, pp. 1844–1861). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Oishi, T. (2001). The unknown Marx: Reconstructing a unified perspective. London/Sterling: Pluto.
Postone, M. (1993). Time, labor and social domination: A reinterpretation of Marx’s critical theory. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ramos, M. A. (1998–99). Value and price of production: New evidence on Marx’s transformation procedure. International Journal of Political Economy, 28(4), 55–81.
Ranganayakamma. (1999). An introduction to Marx’s capital (in 3 Volumes) (Vol. I). Hyderabad: Sweet Home Publications.
Ricardo, D. [1821] (1951). On the principles of political economy and taxation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, I. I. [1927] (1978). Abstract labour and value in Marx’s system. Capital and Class, 5, 107–139.
Sieber, N. I. [1871] (2001). Marx’s theory of value and money. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Marx’s capital and capitalism; Markets in a socialist alternative, research in political economy (Vol. 19, pp. 17–45). New York: JAI/Elsevier Science.
Sieber, N. I. [1874] (2011). Marx’s economic theory. In P. Zarembka & R. Desai (Eds), Revitalizing Marxist theory for today’s capitalism, research in political economy (Vol. 27, pp. 155–190) Bingley: Emerald Publishing Group Limited.
Sinha, A. (1990). The concept of value in Marx: A reinterpretation. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Research in political economy (Vol. 12, pp. 41–79). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Sinha, A. (1996). A critique of part one of capital volume one: The value controversy revisited. In P. Zarembka & A. Sinha (Eds.), Recent developments in Marxist theory, research in political economy (Vol. 15, pp. 195–222). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Sinha, A. (2010). Theories of value from Adam Smith to Piero Sraffa. New Delhi: Routledge.
Smith, D. N. (2001). The spectral reality of value: Sieber, Marx, and Commodity Fetishism. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Marx’s capital and capitalism; Markets in a socialist alternative, research in political economy (Vol. 19), pp. 47–66. New York: JAI/Elsevier Science.
Steedman, I. (1982). Marx on Ricardo. In I. Bradley & M. Howard (Eds.), Classical and Marxian political economy: Essays in Honour of Ronald L. Meek (pp. 115–156). London/Basingstoke: Macmillan.
van Onselen, C. (1976). Chibaro: African mine labour in Southern Rhodesia, 1900–1933. London: Pluto.
Weeks, J. (1982). A note on underconsumptionist theory and the labor theory of value. Science & Society, 46(1), 60–76.
Weeks, J. (1990). Abstract labor and commodity production. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Research in political economy (Vol. 12, pp. 3–19). Greenwich/London: JAI Press.
White, J. D. (1996). Karl Marx and the intellectual origins of dialectical materialism. London: Macmillian.
White, J. D. (2001). Nikolai Sieber and Karl Marx. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Marx’s capital and capitalism; markets in a socialist alternative, research in political economy (Vol. 19, pp. 3–16). New York: JAI/Elsevier Science.
Zarembka, P. (2000). Accumulation of capital, its definition: A century after Lenin and Luxemburg. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Value, capitalist dynamics and money, research in political economy (Vol. 18, pp. 183–241). New York: JAI/Elsevier Science.
Zarembka, P. (2001). The declining importance of Hegel for Marx: J. D. White’s provocative work. Historical Materialism, 8, 355–365.
Zarembka, P. 2002, “Primitive Accumulation in Marxism, Historical or Trans-historical Separation from Means of Production?”, The Commoner, A Web Journal for Other Values (Debate: on Primitive Accumulation at http://www.commoner.org.uk). Reprinted as amended in Subverting the Present, Imagining the Future, W. Bonefeld, ed., Autonomedia,. Brooklyn, 2008, pp. 67–75.
Zarembka, P. [2002] (2008). Primitive accumulation in Marxism, historical or trans-historical separation from means of production? In W. Bonefeld (Ed.), Subverting the present, imagining the future (pp. 67–75). Brooklyn: Autonomedia.
Zarembka, P. (2009). Late Marx and Luxemburg: Opening a development within political economy. In R. Bellofiore (Ed.), Rosa Luxemburg and the critique of political economy. (pp. 64–80). Milton Park/Abingdon: Routledge.
Zarembka, P. (2014). Marxist political economy without Hegel: Contrasting Marx and Luxemburg to Plekhanov and Lenin. In J. Toporowski, E. Karwowski, & R. ellofiore (Eds.), Legacy of Rosa Luxemburg, Oskar Lange and Michal Kalecki: Essays in honour of Tadeusz Kowalik (pp. 58–77). Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zarembka, P. (2015a). Materialized composition of capital and its stability in the United States: Findings stimulated by Paitaridis and Tsoulfidis (2012). Review of Radical Political Economy. 47(1), pp. 106–111.
Zarembka, P. (2015b). Review of S. Karimzadi, “Money and its origins”. Review of Keynesian Economics. 3(3), pp. 438–441.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zarembka, P. (2016). Value: Marx’s Evolution and Luxemburg’s Legacy. In: Dellheim, J., Wolf, F. (eds) Rosa Luxemburg: A Permanent Challenge for Political Economy. Luxemburg International Studies in Political Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60108-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60108-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-60107-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-60108-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)