Class, History and Value Theory - Marx’s Critique of Trinity Formula
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Based on the class process of surplus labor and of overdetermination as mutual interaction of processes, I review Marx’s critique of trinity formula espoused by Classical Political Economists and show it as divulging a concise value theoretic frame of exploring the connection of capitalist relations of production to that of the class distribution of income. Value added by living labor in production and income distribution are related which allows us to introduce a new class angle to address the issue of inequality that is distinct from the conventional approaches on it. Furthermore, expanding on Marx from this class-focused angle, I argue that income distribution is overdetermined by class inequality between doers and non-doers in relations of production. Rather than exclusively focusing on distributive channels to mitigate the problems of income and wealth inequality, Marx’s insight discloses that those channels are constituted by class inequality and hence, sans the acknowledgment of class inequality, any attempt to redress income and wealth inequality would remain open to be undermined.
Abstract
Based on the class process of surplus labor and of overdetermination as mutual interaction of processes, I review Marx’s critique of trinity formula espoused by Classical Political Economists and show it as divulging a concise value theoretic frame of exploring the connection of capitalist relations of production to that of the class distribution of income. Value added by living labor in production and income distribution are related which allows us to introduce a new class angle to address the issue of inequality that is distinct from the conventional approaches on it. Furthermore, expanding on Marx from this class-focused angle, I argue that income distribution is overdetermined by class inequality between doers and non-doers in relations of production. Rather than exclusively focusing on distributive channels to mitigate the problems of income and wealth inequality, Marx’s insight discloses that those channels are constituted by class inequality and hence, sans the acknowledgment of class inequality, any attempt to redress income and wealth inequality would remain open to be undermined.
참고문헌 (13)
- Düzenli, F. E, "Introduction: Value, Commodity Fetishism, and Capital’s Critique", Rethinking Marxism, 23(2), pp.172~179 (2011)
- Majumder, T., "A Critical Analysis of Capitalism, Capital Accumulation and Crisis Theory in David Harvey", Arthaniti: Journal of Economic Theory and Practice (2020)
- Marx, K, "Capital. Vol.3" (1990), Penguin Books
- Olsen, E. K., "Routledge Handbook of Marxian Economics" (2017), Routledge
- Resnick, S. A., "Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy" (1987), University of Chicago Press
- Resnick, S. A., "New Departures in Marxian Theory" (2006), Routledge
- Roberts, B., "Marx after Steedman: Separating Marxism from ‘Surplus Theory’", Capital & Class, 11(2), pp.84~103 (1987)
- Roberts, B., "Post-Modern Materialism and the Future of Marxist Theory: Essays in the Althusserian Tradition" (1996), Wesleyan University Press
- Roberts, B, "The Capitalist State and Its Economy:Democracy in Socialism (Research in Political Economy, Vol.22)", pp.133~165 (2005), Emerald Group Publishing Limited
- Roberts, B., "Routledge Handbook of Marxian Economics" (2017), Routledge
- Sweezy, P., "The Theory of Capitalist Development" (2016), Aakar Books
- Wolff, R. D., "Marx’s (not Ricardo’s)‘Transformation Problem: A Radical Reconceptualization", History of Political Economy, 14(4), pp.564~582 (1982), Duke University Press
- Wolff R. D., "Marxian Alternative to the Traditional ‘Transformation Problem’", Review of Radical Political Economics, 16(2-3), pp.115~135 (1984)