2019 article, originally published in The Oxford handbook of Karl Marx, edited by Matthew Vidal, Tony Smith, Tomás Rotta and Paul Prew, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 129â50. (In the printed handbook version, the internal cross-references are mixed up, because the copy-editor numbered the Introduction without changing the cross references accordingly â the digital version is OK.)
(For its abstract see the Abstracts of all chapters, p. 1.)
Contents
Introduction
1 The background
1.1 The aim of capital and Capital
1.2 Marxâs paradigmatic break from classical political economy
1.3 Method: conceptual progress
1.4 The historical order of Marxâs writings of and for Capital
1.5 Marx as continuous critic of Marx
1.6 Marxâs âaveragesâ account in Capital I
2 The static conceptualisation of value: averages (Capital I, Part One)
2.1 Elements of the initial static or average account of value: Chapter 1
(a) The value of commodities and the concept of abstract labour
(b) Socially necessary labour-time and the intensity of labour
(c) The productive power of labour
(d) Complex potentiated labour and the reduction to simple labour
(e) Labour creates purely social value in the form of commodities (labour is not itself value)
2.2 Money as the measure of value in practice: Chapters 2â3
2.3 Some concluding remarks on the social dimensions adopted by Marx
3 The dynamic conceptualisation of value: deviation from averages (Capital I, Part Four)
3.1 The dynamics as presented in Capital I, Part Four
(a) The intensity of labour
(b) The empowerment of labour
3.2 The new matter about technique related empowerment of labour: comparison with 1861â63 and 1864 manuscripts
3.3 Capital I, Part Four: return to averages
4 Manifestation of value in prices of production (the Capital III manuscript for its Part Two)
4.1 Marxâs 1864â65 manuscript for Capital III: prices of production
5 Incompatibilities: interpretation versus reconstruction
5.1 Incompatibilities
5.2 A reconstruction
5.3 Philological puzzles
Summary
References
Introduction1
Marx in Capital never uses the term âlabour theory of valueâ as a denotation for his own work, and with two exceptions he does not even use the term âtheory of valueâ.2 Nevertheless the concept of âvalueâ is a key one throughout this work. One of Marxâs main concerns is to trace the âwhyâ and âhowâ of âthe accumulation of capitalâ that dominates capitalist society, and he sees the value-form of commodities as its âcell-formâ.
This essay sets out the three main stages of Marxâs conceptualisation of the value of commodities in Capital. After a preliminary section, I begin with what I call the âstatic averagesâ account of Capital I, Part One (§2). We then move to what I call Marxâs âdynamic accountâ of the commoditiesâ value in Capital I, Part Four. We will see that the two main factors of this dynamics are the âintensity of labourâ and the âempowerment of labourâ, each changing and diverging within and between branches of production â the empowerment of labour along with the changing and diverging âproductive powers of labourâ. Although Marx introduces each of these concepts already in Part One, he keeps them as constant on average until Part Four. One upshot of the dynamic account is that clock-time is an insufficient measure for labour-time. I will indicate that whereas the intensity of labour already figured in Marxâs manuscripts of 1861â65, the âempowerment of labourâ related to technique was a new insight of Marx during the 1866â67 composition of the first edition of Capital I (§3).
Section 4 moves to the third stage, that of Marxâs transformation of the value to the price of production of commodities, as we find it in Capital III, Part Two (written in 1864â65, published as edited by Engels in 1894). Section 5 shows how this manuscript is incompatible with Marxâs new insights from 1866â67, and also how it is fairly easy to account for the incompatibility by way of a reconstruction; easy, but with rather far-reaching consequences in face of the history of Marxian theory.3|4 (Footnote 4 sets out the way of referencing.)
In Sections 1 to 4 I try to give a fair interpretation of Marxâs conceptualisation of value throughout Capital, leaving out any ideas stemming from my own contributions to Marxian theory.
[Annotation. Throughout this essay I translate Marxâs German âpotenzierte Arbeitâ as âempowered labourâ, whereas in my 2017 (Chapter 15 below) I used the term âpotentiated labourâ.]
1 The background
In this section I briefly introduce six items that are relevant for the rest of the essay, including the conclusions drawn.
1.1 The aim of capital and Capital
Marxâs Capital sets out an exposition of the capitalist mode of production. The ultimate aim of capitalists (enterprises and their financiers) is the accumulation of capital. In Capital Marx shows how, via the production of surplus-value, capital is produced by labour. The value-form of commodities is the elementary form of the production and accumulation of capital. Core to Marxâs exposition is the dual character of commodities (as useful entities and as values) and the dual character of labour along with it. This is why the concept of value and especially labourâs production of value is a core one.
1.2 Marxâs paradigmatic break from classical political economy
Marx, the founder of the political economy paradigm that bears his name, accomplished a paradigmatic break from both Hegelian philosophy and classical political economy. Marx shares the fate of all founders of paradigms: the break to a large extent has to be formulated in the language of the former paradigm. This brings with it inevitable ambiguities. These ambiguities and problems of interpretation are in one way or the other resolved or accommodated by those working in the new paradigmatic language (this is what Kuhn, in The structure of scientific revolutions, called âpuzzle solvingâ), which may take the shape of âreconstructionsâ of the originatorâs work.
1.3 Method: conceptual progress
Related to the previous point there has always been controversy over Marxâs method among Marxian authors, mainly as relating to the character of his break from Hegel. However, few dispute that Marx in Capital adopts a method of layered conceptual progress, starting with general and relatively uncomplicated concepts, to particular and complex concepts (this method might be denoted as a type of systematic dialectics, or as what Sweezy (1968 [1942]) called âsuccessive approximationâ). This applies to all of Marxâs main concepts, and especially also to his concept of value.
1.4 The historical order of Marxâs writings of and for Capital
We see this conceptual layering also in the design of the three volumes of Capital. As is well known, Marx completed only its first volume, the other two were edited by Engels on the basis of Marxâs manuscripts. For all of Marxâs main concepts, and especially also for that of value, it is most relevant that the manuscript for âCapital IIIâ and much of that for II, was written before Capital I (see Table 1, rows 1â3).
Table 1
Order of publications and manuscripts of Marxâs âCapital projectâ
|
Publication 1st edition (German) |
Main manuscript by Marx (of 1st edition) |
Order of ms |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Capital I |
1867 (Marx)* |
1866â67â |
4 |
|
2 |
Capital II |
1885 (ed. Engels) |
1865; 1877â81 |
3/5 |
|
3 |
Capital III |
1894 (ed. Engels) |
1863â65 |
2 |
|
4 |
Capital I |
penultimate draftâ¡ |
1863â64 |
1 |
|
5 |
Resultsâ |
1933 (published ms.) |
1864 |
1 |
| * |
2nd edition (Marx) 1872; 3rd edn. (Engels, using Marxâs notes) 1883; 4th edn. (Engels) 1890. |
| â |
For much of its Part One redrafting his 1859 work, and for much of the current Parts Two to Six redrafting his 1863â64 manuscripts (see Vollgraf 2012, and Hubmann and Roth 2013). |
| â¡ |
Blended into the final draft of 1866â67, except the next text (see Vollgraf 2012). |
| â |
âResults of the direct production processâ. |
The order here is particularly important because, as MEGA editor Vollgraf indicates, with the drafts for Capital of 1864â81 Marx started in fact a conceptually new project, in contradistinction to his 1857â63 project. The two âdiffer in content and structureâ (Vollgraf 2018, p. 71).
It is most likely that if Marx had lived longer, he would have rewritten his drafts for Volumes II and III in line with his new 1866â67 Capital I findings.
In §§2â4 I will draw on the works of rows 1â3 of the table, and also that of row 5, âResults of the direct production processâ.
1.5 Marx as continuous critic of Marx
Marxâs two main projects and the continuous redrafting and re-conceptualisations of his texts (continued after 1867 â see especially MEGA II.4.3; II.7; II.11 and II.14) show how Marx was continuously his own main critic. This shows his thorough scientific attitude. It is most likely that had he lived longer this would have been prolonged. In my view, therefore, the best tribute to Marx is to not only interpret his texts (with all their problems â §1.2) but to be a critic of Marx in his vein and go on to reconstruct and expand his project. The worst attitude, alien to Marx, is to consider his writings handed down as the final truth.
1.6 Marxâs âaveragesâ account in Capital I
A final issue on which I will draw in the rest of this essay â an issue that has received too little attention in the literature â regards Marxâs âaveragesâ account in Capital I especially. I stressed this in a 2004 article. It was greatly highlighted again by Vollgraf (2012, pp. 50â1). He indicates that Marx was influenced by the Belgian mathematician and statistician Quételet, who in a work of 1835 was the first to apply âaveragesâ in social science.
Below (§3) we will see the import of the averages account in Parts Four and Five of Capital I, which are especially crucial for his conceptualisation of value. Marx starts from social averages, moves to deviation from and changes of averages, and then returns back to (new) social averages.
To be sure, this averages account of individual capitals is not the same as a macroeconomic account. Besides, Marx is very explicit that only in Capital II, Part Three (where he presents his reproduction schemes) does he move from the individual capital to the âtotal social capitalâ â or what since 1933 is called âmacroeconomicsâ (Marx 1893 [18851] EBF, especially pp. 427â30 and 469â70).
2 The static conceptualisation of value: averages (Capital I, Part One)
2.1 Elements of the initial static or average account of value: Chapter 1
In Capital I, ch. 1, section 1, Marx posits the duality of the use-value and the value of commodities, and along with it the duality of concrete labour and abstract labour. In a commodity producing society, products not only have some use-value (usefulness) â which is the product of concrete labour â but also an exchange-value. The dualities introduced here are core to all of his further exposition in Capital.
(a) The value of commodities and the concept of abstract labour. This is how âabstract labourâ and âvalueâ are introduced for the first time:
If then we disregard the use-value of commodities, only one property remains, that of being products of labour. (â¦) If we make abstraction from its use-value, we abstract also from the material constituents and forms which make it a use-value. (â¦) [With it] the useful character of the kinds of labour embodied in them also disappears {aufgelöscht: dissolves} this in turn entails the disappearance of the different concrete forms of labour. They can no longer be distinguished, but are altogether reduced to the same kind of labour, human labour in the abstract. (Marx 18904 [18671] EBF, p. 128; cf. 18904 [18671] MEW, p. 52. Below I abbreviate the references as MEW for the German, and EBF for the English Ben Fowkes translation. Superscripts after a publication year always refer to the edition of a work.)
Thus, Marx continues, disregarding the usefulness of commodities:
There is nothing left of them ⦠but the same phantom-like objectivity; they are merely congealed quantities of homogeneous human labour, i.e., of human labour-power expended without regard to the form of its expenditure. All these things now tell us {stellen nur noch dar: are exhibited only as} that human labour-power has been expended to produce them, human labour is accumulated {aufgehäuft: amassed} in them. As crystals of this social substance, which is common to them all, they are values â commodity values [Warenwerte]. (Marx, EBF, p. 128; MEW, p. 52).
After this he indicates: âThe progress of the investigation will lead us back to exchange-value as the necessary mode of expression, or form of appearance, of valueâ (ibid.). (In his chapter 1, section 3, and chapters 2â3). Somewhat further on we have the one and only time that Marx uses the term measure(ment) of value in the fifty pages of chapter 1:
How is the magnitude of this value to be measured? By means of the quantity of the âvalue-forming {bildenden: constituting} substanceâ, the labour contained in the article. This quantity is measured by its duration, and the labour-time is itself measured on the particular scale of hours, days, etc. (Marx, EBF, p. 129; MEW, p. 53)
(b) Socially necessary labour-time and the intensity of labour. Next the terms âaverageâ, âsocially necessary labour-timeâ and âintensity of labourâ are introduced for the first time.
The total labour-power of society, which is manifested {sich darstellt: is exhibited} in the values of the world of commodities, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour-power, although composed of innumerable individual units of labour-power.5 Each of these units is the same as any other, to the extent that it has the character of a socially average unit of labour-power and acts as such; i.e., only needs, in order to produce a commodity, the labour time which is necessary on an average, or in other words is socially necessary. Socially necessary labour-time is the labour-time required to produce any use-value under the conditions of production normal for a given society and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labour prevalent in that society. (â¦) What exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. (Marx, EBF, p. 129; MEW, pp. 53â4).
(c) The productive power of labour. A final general concept regarding Marxâs conceptualisation of the value of commodities, is that of the âproductive power of labourâ (German: Produktivkraft der Arbeit), which should be distinguished from âlabour-powerâ. Note that the term Produktivkräfte dates back to the 1845â46 German Ideology (in MECW 5 it is translated as âproductive forcesâ). Unfortunately, the translator of Capital has withheld the concept from English readers, translating the phrase as âproductivity of labourâ â a concept that Marx also uses, but the two are definitively not the same.6 The concept of the âproductive power of labourâ will also play an important role in §3 below (dynamics), and it is essential to distinguish it from the âintensity of labourâ introduced above. Henceforth I will correct the translatorâs error by amending his âproductivity of labour,â putting *productive power of labour* between asterisks. Marx writes:
The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour-time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the *productive power of labour*. This is determined by a wide range of circumstances; it is determined amongst other things by the workersâ average degree of skill, the level of development of science and its technological application, the social organisation of the process of production, the extent and effectiveness of the means of production, and the conditions found in the natural environment. (â¦) The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the *productive power* of the labour which finds its realisation {verwirklichenden: actualisation} within the commodity. (Marx, EBF, pp. 130â1; MEW, pp. 54â5).
So far Chapter 1âs section 1. Anticipating §3 (dynamics), I record that Marx first introduced the average intensity of labour and next, as distinguished from it, the productive power of labour.
(d) Complex âempowered labourâ and the reduction to simple labour. Section 2 expands on the duality of labour as producing use-values and as producing the value actualised in commodities. I focus on one main issue, namely Marxâs conceptualisation of âsimple average labourâ. He writes according to the translator:
But the value of a commodity represents {stellt da: exhibits} human labour pure and simple {schlechthin: plainly}, the expenditure of human labour in general {überhaupt}. (â¦) It is the expenditure of simple labour-power, i.e., of the labour-power possessed in his bodily organism by every ordinary man, on the average, without being developed in any special way. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different cultural epochs, but in a particular society it is given. More complex labour counts only as intensified, or rather multiplied simple labour, so that a smaller quantity of complex labour is considered equal to a larger quantity of simple labour. (EBF, p. 135; cf. MEW, p. 59)
As a translation from the German, the last dotted text is utterly wrong. The German reads: âKompliziertere Arbeit gilt nur als potenzierte oder vielmehr multiplizierte einfache Arbeit â¦â (MEW, p. 59). That is: âMore complex labour counts only as empowered or rather multiplied simple labour â¦â.7 In §3.1 we will see the relevance of this amended translation. Here I record the order of Marx exposition: he first introduces the average intensity of labour (EBF, p. 129; MEW, pp. 53â4), and after his introduction of the concept of the âproductive power of labourâ (EBF, p. 130; MEW, p. 54) he now introduces the concept of âempowered labourâ. Immediately after this Marx writes:
Experience shows that this reduction [of empowered into simple labour] is constantly {Beständig: continually} being made.8 A commodity may be the outcome of the most complicated labour, but through its value it is posited as equal to the product of simple labour, hence it represents {exhibits} only a specific quantity of simple labour ⦠The various proportions in which different kinds of labour are reduced to simple labour as their unit of measurement are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers; these proportions therefore appear to the producers to have been handed down by tradition. In the interests of simplification, we shall henceforth view every form of labour-power directly as simple labour-power; by this we shall simply be saving ourselves the trouble of making the reduction. (Marx, EBF, p. 135; cf. MEW, p. 59)
I have nothing against Marxâs concept of âempowered labourâ: it is a great and utmost important concept (as we will see in my §3). However, his concept of âreductionâ requires a brief comment. Marx does not tell how this reduction of labour-power is operationalised. My problem is not that he glosses over this at this point (Chapter 1). The problem is that in all three volumes of Capital he never returns to this matter. The extent to which this is important depends on whether at some stage one would want to apply this empirically and operationalise it. I think that this simplification precludes the adding up of labour-times before settling the trouble of making the reduction.9 Indeed, I think that this simplifying abstraction (here: assumption) makes a quantitative procedure at the empirical level of adding up concrete premarket hours of labour very dubious.
(e) Labour creates purely social value in the form of commodities (labour is not itself value). In Chapter 1, sections 3â4, it becomes clear how we must read the earlier sections in retrospect. Within the space constraints for this essay I merely highlight two conclusions of Marx from section 3 (âThe value-form, or exchange valueâ). In this section Marx sets out how the value of commodities appears in relations of exchange. At the opening of this section he writes:
Commodities (â¦) only appear as commodities, or have the form of commodities, in so far as they possess a double form, i.e., natural form and value form. (â¦) Not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of commodities as values (â¦) their objective character as values is therefore purely social. (Marx, EBF, pp. 138â9; cf. MEW, p. 62)
Thus, to be sure, when we perceive a single commodity (bread or a car) there is no way to detect its value from that perception. As such, its value seems super-sensuous. The value character of commodities emerges {hervortreten} only in their relation to other commodities (EBF, pp. 141â2; MEW, p. 65) and in particular in their manifestation (Gestalt) of the commoditiesâ common value-form, that is, the money form (EBF, p. 139; MEW, p. 62; MEW, p. 75 and EBF, p. 162; MEW, p. 84). Early on in this section Marx concluded already:
Human labour-power in its fluid state, or human labour, creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value in its coagulated state, in objective form. (Marx, EBF, p. 142; cf. MEW, p. 65)
Thus the value of commodities is explained by labour-time.
2.2 Money as the measure of value in practice: Chapters 2â3
The current subsection is not relevant for the remainder of this essay. However, regarding Marxâs conceptualisation of value I cannot neglect to focus the readerâs attention to Chapters 2â3 of Capital I, Part One. Each one of the Parts of Capital constitutes a unity.
Marx started Ch. 1, section 1, with the exchange-value of commodities. He systematically introduces this concept in section 3, where he also posits the form of money â expanding on the latterâs broad social implications in section 4.
The relatively brief Ch. 2 on the process of exchange, introduces social actors of exchange and the action of society to turn a particular commodity into the general equivalent âmoneyâ (EBF, p. 180) within a society of generalised commodity production (EBF, p. 187). In sum it posits the prevalence (Dasein) of money in practice.
Money itself (i.e., its systemic existence) is derived in Ch. 3. Notably it is systematically derived from exchange, just as the commodity and value were derived from exchange. It is only later (that is in all the rest of Capital) that the role of the money-form of value, that is moneyâs role in production and in the full circuit of capital will become explicit. But in order to comprehend this role, Ch. 3 is absolutely crucial.
Here I restrict myself to one brief quotation from its section 1 (âThe measure of valuesâ):
Money as a measure of value is the necessary form of appearance of the measure of value which is immanent in commodities, namely labour-time. (Marx, EBF, p. 188; MEW, p. 109)
Marx starts his exposition in this chapter with the sentence: âThroughout this work I assume that gold is the money commodity, for the sake of simplicityâ (ibid). Whereas this was not strange in 1867, it has nevertheless been controversial among Marxian scholars. I refer to three contrary positions, each one plausible in itself, that are in the end, in my view, nevertheless complementary. These are Campbell 1997, Williams 2000 and Bellofiore 2005.
2.3 Some concluding remarks on the social dimensions adopted by Marx
The result of Part One is that in all of Capital value entities are expressed in a monetary dimension (using some currency standard such as £); the same applies to all numerical examples.10 Throughout Marx adopts two main social dimensions, namely labour-time and monetary value. âLabour, creates value, but is not itself value.â It is important to (re)emphasise the latter since in some interpretations of Marxâs Capital âvalueâ is itself taken to have a labour-time dimension. Those same accounts often adopt the term âlabour valuesâ â a term never used in Capital.11 At the level of the production of capital (Capital I) Marx aims to explain value and surplus-value (in the monetary dimension) in terms of labour-time (in Parts Three to Five, 350 pages) â an explanation in terms of labour-time does, of course, not mean that value actually ever discards its monetary dimension.12
3 The dynamic conceptualisation of value: deviation from averages (Capital I, Part Four)
3.1 The dynamics as presented in Capital I, Part Four
Marxâs major dynamic conceptualisation of value is in Capital I, Part Four (âThe production of relative surplus-valueâ). Starting from averages, he next considers changes in the value of commodities due to changes in labourâs productivity. There are two factors affecting such changes. Each of these were already briefly treated in the bookâs Ch. 1 (§2.1 above under b to d).
(a) The intensity of labour. Taking the degree of âempowerment of labourâ as given (see under heading b below), the productivity of labour will change with the âintensity of labourâ, that is, the effort and strain of labour, as initiated by some capitalist in some sector. Along with it Marx introduces the concept of the âdegree of densityâ of labour, implying that clock-time is an insufficient measure.13 He treats this matter in Part Four, chapter 15 (ch. 13 of the German edition). He writes:
It [intensification of labour] imposes on the worker an increased expenditure of labour within a time which remains constant, a heightened tension of labour-power, and a closer filling-up of the pores of the working day, i.e., a condensation of labour, to a degree which can only be attained within the limits of the shortened working day. This compression of a greater mass of labour into a given period now counts for what it really is, namely an increase of the quantity of labour. In addition to the measure of its âextensive magnitudeâ, labour-time now acquires a measure of its degree of density.14 (â¦) the same mass of value is now produced for the capitalist by, say, 3â hours of surplus labour and 6â hours of necessary labour, as was previously produced by 4 hours of surplus labour and 8 hours of necessary labour. (Marx 18904 [18671] EBF, p. 534; cf. Marx 18904 [18671] MEW, pp. 432â3)
According to Marx, however, differences in the intensity of labour tend to be levelled out by way of competition between workers. I add that this may perhaps seem obvious within some sector (branch) of production, though less so between sectors of production. Given the current skills of labour, a levelling out between sectors would seem a medium or long run matter. As long as this is not effectuated we would have diverging rates of surplus-value between sectors.
(b) The empowerment of labour. The second factor affecting changes in the productivity of labour is the âempowerment of labourâ. It is treated in chapter 12 (chapter 10 of the German edition), where Marx systematically introduces the âproductive power of labourâ (German: Produktivkraft der Arbeit). Again the English translator renders Produktivkraft into âproductivityâ. In all quotations below I amend this, as marked by asterisks (*). Marx writes:
increase in the *productive power of labour* (â¦) cannot be done except by an alteration in his [the labourerâs] tools or in his mode of working, or both. (â¦) By an increase in the *productive power of labour*, we mean an alteration in the labour process of such a kind as to shorten the labour-time socially necessary for the production of a commodity, whence a smaller quantity of labour acquires the power of producing a greater quantity of use-value. (Marx, EBF, p. 431-amended; MEW, p. 333)
And:
The technical and social conditions of the labour process and consequently the mode of production itself must be revolutionized before the *productive power of labour* can be increased. (Marx, EBF, p. 432-amended; MEW, p. 334)
Regarding the âempowerment of labourâ the following is the key sentence:
The labour operating at this exceptional productive power acts as empowered labour; it creates in equal periods of time greater values than average social labour of the same kind. (Marx, my translation of MEW, p. 337; cf. EBF, p. 435)15
Fowkes â and hence all English language readers â completely misses the point because he translates the German âpotenzierte Arbeitâ by âintensified labourâ so muddling it with the distinction that I introduced above under (a).16
This beyond average value-creating empowerment of labour cannot be simply measured in clock-time. (The latterâs insufficiency is the one similarity between the intensity and the empowerment of labour.) Marx continues:
Hence, the capitalist who applies the improved method of production, appropriates as surplus-labour a greater portion of the working-day than the other capitalists in the same business. (â¦) On the other hand, however, this extra surplus-value vanishes, as soon as the new method of production is generalized â¦. (Marx, EBF, p. 436; cf. MEW, p. 337)
This is quite right. Note, however, that Marx feels (rightfully) constrained to exhibit a change in the social-average productive power as a change within one sector of production. He (rightfully) posits no mechanism for generalisations of the productive powers between sectors. (Anticipating §4, it can already be remarked that would such a mechanism exist, it might perhaps imply an equalisation of compositions of capital?!)
In the absence of such a mechanism and given the value-generating empowerment, Marxâs exposition here implies divergences in rates of surplus-value between sectors. These stem from diverging technical changes, a factor independent of the intensity of labour, even if the two can be combined â as Marx indicates.17
3.2 The new matter about technique related empowerment of labour: comparison with 1861â63 and 1864 manuscripts
All the evidence that we have establishes that Marx developed his insights regarding the âempowerment of labourâ related to technique only in 1866â67 when he worked on the final draft for the first edition of Capital I. Regarding the 1861â63 text this can be checked since we have these texts: MECW 30 and 34 (based on MEGA II/3). Because the 1863â64 penultimate draft for Capital I was blended into the ultimate draft, except for the 1864 Results (§1.4, Table 1), the latter might provide a further indication. In this text Marx presents a quite extensive treatment of technical change. Nevertheless, as in the earlier manuscripts, he here treats only the intensity of labour.
3.3 Capital I, Part Four: return to averages
In Chapter 17 of Part Five (German edition ch. 15) â synthesising Parts Three and Four â the main focus is again on social averages (this also applies for the next and last chapter of this Part). Given Marxâs method in Capital I there is nothing wrong with this. For the purposes of this essay I merely record that he continues to make a clear distinction between the intensity and the productive power of labour. Thus he writes that at a given average real-wage rate per ânormal working dayâ, the rate of surplus-value depends on:
(1) the length of the working day, or the extensive magnitude of labour, (2) the normal intensity of labour, or its intensive magnitude, whereby a given quantity of labour is expended in a given time and (3) the *productive power* of labour, whereby the same quantity of labour yields, in a given time, a greater or a smaller quantity of the product, depending on the degree of development attained by the conditions of production. (EBF, p. 655; cf. MEW, p. 542)
Marx emphasises strongly that the three determinants mentioned in this passage are not only variable, but also may occur separately or in several combinations. In what follows this passage, he analyses each of these in turn, in four separate sections. Marx here usually assumes that the determinants have been generalised across the economy, whereas the previous chapters (briefly discussed in §3.1) also treated (the initiation of) changes.
4 Manifestation of value in prices of production (the Capital III manuscript for its Part Two)
Capital III presents âThe manifestations (Gestaltungen) of capitalist production.â18 Engels turned this title of Marx in his manuscript into: âThe production process as a whole.â In this section I briefly present the third main stage of Marxâs conceptualisation of value: the âtransformationâ of the value of commodities into âprices of productionâ (Part Two of the book).19
4.1 Marxâs 1864â65 manuscript for Capital III: prices of production
At the very beginning of Part Two (in the manuscript the full Part is one single chapter), Marx immediately delimits the scope of his theorising about the rate of surplus-value. He writes:
In this chapter {i.e., Part} we ⦠assume that the degree of exploitation of labour, i.e., the rate of surplus-value, and the length of the working day, is the same in all the spheres of production â¦. (Marx 1894, EDF, p. 241).
Below I use the following notation: s = surplus-value; v = the wages sum; sʹ = the rate of surplus-value (sʹ = s/v); c = constant capital (means of production used up); c/v = the âcomposition of capitalâ (abbreviated CC); rʹ = the rate of profit (rʹ = s(c+v)). Subscripts i and j refer to any sector. Later on I use
In Ch. 8 Marx sets out the following prepositions, indicating a hypothetical state prior to the transformation:
|
[A] |
Commodities are sold âat their valuesâ. |
|
|
[B] |
Rates of surplus-value are equalised. |
sʹi = sʹj |
|
[C] |
Compositions of capital diverge. |
(c/v)i â (c/v)j |
|
[D] |
Hence [A-C] equal capitals produce unequal surplus-value or profit. |
[s/(c+v)]i â [s/(c+v)]j |
|
Therefore we obtain diverging rates of profit. |
rʹi â rʹj |
|
|
(See Table 2, left box: âCapital I in apparent hindsightâ.) |
||
|
[E] |
Yet, in fact, we have (tendentially) equalised profit rates. |
rʹi = rʹj |
Hence this set of presuppositions [AâE] is incompatible. At least one of these must be wrong.
In Ch. 9 Marx introduces the new concept of âproduction priceâ, which is predicated on preposition [E]. The production price is a âtransformation of valueâ. Here he sets out three numerical schemes. The first and the second scheme apply presuppositions [A]â[D]. The third scheme applies [B]â[C] and [E] and introduces prices of production. For the sake of brevity, Table 2 compresses these three schemes to one single and reduced one.
Table 2
Reduced transformation scheme: expressions in money
|
Capital I in apparent hindsight |
Capital III after transformation |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
c |
v |
s |
c+v+s |
rʹ = s/(c+v) |
c |
v |
distribution |
c+v+ |
|
|
|
low CC |
70 |
30 |
30 |
130 |
30% |
70 |
30 |
30 Â â 10 |
130 Â â 10 |
20% |
|
average CC |
80 |
20 |
20 |
120 |
20% |
80 |
20 |
20 |
120 |
20% |
|
high CC |
90 |
10 |
10 |
110 |
10% |
90 |
10 |
10 + 10 |
110 + 10 |
20% |
|
total |
240 |
60 |
60 |
360â |
20% |
240 |
60 |
60 |
360â¡ |
20% |
| â |
values |
| â¡ |
prices of production |
Thus Marx drops sales at value (presupposition A), introduces production prices instead, and thereby gets rid of diverging profit rates (presupposition D). He does this with hardly any argument. Note that he maintains the production of surplus-value, which is now redistributed as profits
However, presupposition [A] is not abandoned altogether. Marx posits two aggregate equalities: that of aggregate surplus-value and profits, and that of aggregate values and production prices (see the bottom row of Table 2).
For Marxâs exposition in Ch. 10 of how this transformation actually comes about as a process, I refer to Reuten 2018, §2.4. Here I focus on one main aspect of it. Marx writes about the constellation prior to the transformation and the surplus-value produced after it:
[E]quality in the grade of exploitation of labour or the rate of surplus-value (â¦) presupposes competition among the workers and an equalisation that takes place by their continuous migration from one sphere of production to another. (Marx {1864â65 ms}19931 MEGA, p. 250, my translation; cf. Marx {1864â65 ms} 2016, EBF, p. 286 and Marx 1894, EDF, p. 275)
Thus regarding the rate of surplus-value he has merely the intensity of labour in mind, because only this would be relevant for the migration.
5 Incompatibilities: interpretation versus reconstruction
5.1 Incompatibilities
Many commentators of Marx have rightly pointed to the defects of this transformation (Marx was aware of quite a number of them), as well as its incompatibilities with his Capital I text. This is not the place to review these defects, and there is not one independent review of the positions that I could refer to. A novice reader of Marx might perhaps start with the now âclassicâ Sweezy 1968 [1942], pp. 109â30.
5.2 A reconstruction
We have seen that in Capital I, after the dynamic account of Part Four, Marx in Part Five returns to the account of average âsocially necessary labour timeâ. There is nothing wrong with this. However, when considering different spheres of production as in (the draft for) Capital III, these averages are inadequate as the (presumably structural) between-sector deviations from the average are the crux. Marxâs inter-sector differing compositions of capital are one part of the relevant matter. The other part regards the differing technique related empowerment of labour, whence rates of surplus-value differ between sectors (§3.1). However, in the Capital III draft for Part Two Marx neglects this, which is even more remarkable because in Part Three he directly associates the composition of capital with the productive power of labour.20 (I write that he âneglectsâ it; perhaps he was not yet aware of it â see the following subsection.)
In Reuten 2017 (§4) it is shown that it is not difficult to reconstruct Marxâs account of value in Capital III, Part Two. In brief: cross out the âredistributionâ of surplus-value and cross out âprices of productionâ. We have differing productive powers of labour between sectors that in equilibrium â because of intra-labour competition regarding the intensity of labour (effort and strain) â reduce to differing empowerments of labour. The latter are associated with technique-determined differing compositions of capital. As a result the rates of surplus-value differ between sectors. In equilibrium we have thus equalised rates of profit.
Hence the stylised example of Table 2 turns simply into that of Table 3.
Table 3.
âCapital IIIâ, Part Two, reconstructed in face of Capital I: expressions in money
|
c |
v |
s |
c+v+s |
rʹ = s/(c+v) |
s/v |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
low CC |
70 |
30 |
20 |
120 |
20% |
67% |
|
average CC |
80 |
20 |
20 |
120 |
20% |
100% |
|
high CC |
90 |
10 |
20 |
120 |
20% |
200% |
|
total |
240 |
60 |
60 |
360â |
20% |
100%â¡ |
| â |
values |
| â¡ |
average |
Thus the core matter is that capitalists are out to raise the accumulation of capital by way of raising the rate of surplus-value via technical change, that is, change of the empowerment of labour associated with the productive powers. This is in line with all of Marxâs exposition in Capital I.21
All along we have the dimension of value as expressed in money. Furthermore, this reconstruction can be directly applied empirically, with two qualifications. Firstly, we have to neglect Marxâs âreduction to simple labourâ (§2.1 above, under d). As indicated, Marx himself never returned to this matter â and it also plays no role in his transformation to prices of production. Secondly, the distinction between the intensity and the empowerment of labour is important, but the intensity of labour is very difficult to measure in an operational way, and especially so between sectors. Thus I assume (as does Marx) that in the long run it is levelled out between sectors. (I am not saying that the intensity of labour should be neglected, it is an important field for empirical research.)
5.3 Philological puzzles
The final point regards the question why Marx, as well as Marxian political economists working in his tradition, never came up with the simple reconstruction set out above.
It seems that â as indicated in §3.2 â the technique determined empowerment of labour was only developed by Marx during 1866â67. We might then hypothesise that he left for later the working out of its consequences for his âCapital IIIâ draft. (We can be glad that he gave priority to the far more important reproduction schemes of Capital II, where we find his foundation of macroeconomics avant la lettre.)
Against this hypothesis weights a letter he wrote to Engels on 30 April 1868. Here he starts out from the presupposition of equalised rates of surplus-value between sectors.22 Marx apparently continued to have in mind the ideas about the transformation found in the 1861â63 manuscripts, as well as his Capital I, Part Five âreturn to averagesâ account. Apparently Marxâs mind was fixed on equalising rates of surplus-value.
At least at that time. There is a small manuscript of six pages â published for the first time in 2003 â that dates probably from 1878 (see Vollgraf and Roth with Jungnickel 2003, p. 697). Consider the following two passages:23
For [the] calculation of the rate of profit that the social capital yields it was assumed {angenommen}, 1) that the rate of surplus-value {is} uniform for the different heaps of capital {Kapitalmassen} in different branches of industry, 2) and neglecting turnover, i.e., the turnover of the social capital over the year posited = 1. In fact for the different heaps of capital different rates of surplus-value and different turnover times. (Marx {1878ms; emphases in italics are Marxâs} 2003, p. 158, my translation)
The clarification following it (after seven printed lines on the calibration of turnover times) is very interesting. Note Marxâs usage of the term pure (rein) which he reserves for law-like entities.
These are just differences {Differenzen} emerging from the pure economic conditions, namely different {verschiedne} magnitudes of the capitals invested in business sectors, different rates of exploitation of labour-power, different turnover times. However [there are] other aspects of the equalisation such as unattractiveness, danger and standing of the work. (Marx {1878ms} 2003, p. 158, my translation)24
As for the 1864â65 Capital III manuscript or the 1868 letter, this text cannot be taken as definitive. The greatness of Marx was that for him nothing was definitive (see §1.5). This is what I have learnt, and what all interpreters of Marx could learn from him.
Summary
In the methodological stages approach of Marx, he starts in chapter 1 of Capital I with a static and averages conceptualisation of the value of commodities. Positing a distinction between the use-value and the value of commodities, and abstracting from the concrete aspect of labour creating use-value, the remaining aspect of qualitatively homogeneous value is determined by qualitatively homogenous social average labour â the quantity of commoditiesâ value being determined by the amount of time this social average labour is used for their production. Marx arrives at this in the first two sections of the chapter, where he also specifies the determinants he posits as constant in this (what I have called âstaticâ) approach. These are the intensity of labour and the empowerment of labour â the latter itself being determined by the âproductive power of labourâ which includes technology and techniques. In the last two sections of the chapter, and continuing in chapters 2 and 3, he derives the exchange-value of commodities, the concept of money, and finally money as the measure of value in practice (§2).
In Part Four of Capital I Marx gets to what I have called the âdynamicsâ of his conceptualisation of value. Here he considers changes and variations between sectors of production of, first, the intensity of labour and, secondly, the âproductive powersâ determined empowerment of labour. Each one of these implies, firstly, that a clock-time measure of labour-time is an insufficient measure of the immanent value of commodities and, secondly that the rates of surplus-value diverge between sectors of production (initially also within sectors of production). A specific, though most important, point is that he posits no mechanism for between sector generalisations of the productive powers â hence neither for the empowerment of labour. In Part Five Marx returns to the averages account. I indicated that all the information that we have establishes that Marx developed his insights regarding the technique related âempowerment of labourâ only in 1866â67, when he worked on the final draft for the first edition of Capital I. This applies for Part Four as well as for Part One (§3).
In §4 I very briefly summarised Marxâs transformation of values into prices of production, as written in 1864â65. In face of the foregoing sections the most important point is that Marx keeps here the rates of surplus-value as equalised between sectors of production. In fact this is what made him construct the prices of production framework (given the rather evident diverging compositions of capital and equalising rates of profit).
Section 4 concluded that Marxâs Capital I and the âCapital IIIâ manuscript views are incompatible (unless we would assume equalising productive powers and compositions of capital across sectors â which is contrary to all the empirical evidence that we have hitherto). On basis of Capital I Part Four, however, a most simple reconstruction is obvious: erase the 1864â65 equalised rates of surplus-value and erase its prices of production.
Given that Marx was a continuous critic of Marx (§1), it is proper â as an interpretation â to give dominant weight to his last version of Capital I, and his last brief manuscript on the matter of 1878 in which he seems to widen his perspective towards sector-wise diverging rates of surplus-value. However, for those that would not want to swallow this brief manuscript, I propose the reconstruction indicated without that manuscript. In this way the whole of Capital makes sense â that is within its constraints.
I am most grateful to Tony Smith for his comments on an earlier version of this article.
One exception is a single phrase in the Postface to the 2nd edition of Capital I, and the other a single phrase in Capital III, Ch. 8.
Throughout the essay I make a distinction between Marxâs and Marxian works indicating with the latter the work of those working in Marxâs tradition or paradigm.
Because each of the exact translations and the exact dating of Marxâs manuscripts is quite important, I adopt the following conventions here. In all quotations emphasis by Marx is in italics; my own emphasis is underlined. In all quotations, insertions in [square brackets] are either by the translator or editor as in the edition quoted from, or by me to complete an ellipsis. Insertions in {curly brackets} are mine, usually regarding the German to English translation; the German terms in this case are in italics. Ellipses within one, or at the end of, a sentence are indicated by three dots ⦠Ellipses indicated by three dots within brackets (â¦) regard those of one or several sentences. My references to Marx include mostly an English and a German version. For these I use the following convention: (a) for texts published by Marx or Engels, as âMarx 18904 [18671] MEWâ, where the dates with superscripts denote the edition and the addition MEW the edition quoted from (in this case Marx-Engels Werke) or the addition EDF (in this case English transl. David Fernbach); (b) for manuscripts (ms) not published literally by Marx or Engels, as âMarx {1864â65 ms}1993 MEGAâ, where the date in braces indicates the (probable) year of the manuscript, the year following it is the first year of publication, and the addition the edition quoted from (in this case Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe) or the addition EBF (in this case the English transl. by Ben Fowkes). I refer to the MEW for those texts not digitally available in the MEGA at the time of writing.
The term âunitâ in this and the following sentence brings in a certain emphasis that is not in the German text. Marx has, literally, âindividual labour powersâ (MEW, p. 53).
In the earlier translation by Moore and Aveling (originally 1887) the same mistake is made: their translation is âproductivenessâ (see MECW 35, p. 50).
Again, in the Moore and Aveling translation we have roughly the same mistake: âSkilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour â¦â (MECW 35, p. 54).
It seems to me that âconstantâ has too much the connotation of a constant factor (Konstant in German), though English writers are often not precise in this respect.
However, actually settling the trouble might then take one into Adam Smithâs labour-commanded waters, or the realm of J.M. Keynesâs wage unit.
Elson (1979) pointed this out.
For example, Schefold (who is generally well acquainted with the field) does presume this. Thus, in his introduction to Capital III, Schefold (2004, p. 874) erroneously writes âArbeitswerten (wie Marx sie nannte)â {âLabour-values (as Marx called them)â}. Possibly Marx used this expression in some writing prior to Capital â Schefold cites no source â but that would surprise me very much.
Reuten 2004, §1.1 traces the dimensions and measures adopted by Marx in Parts Three to Five of Capital I. [Chapter 8 of the current book.]
Throughout the 1861â63 manuscript he uses the term âcondensationâ instead of âdensityâ (MECW 33, pp. 382â7).
Before the phrase âdegree of densityâ, the translator adds: âintensity, orâ.
The German text reads: âDie Arbeit von ausnahmsweiser Produktivkraft wirkt als potenzierte Arbeit oder schafft in gleichen Zeiträumen höhere Werte als die gesellschaftliche Durchschnittsarbeit derselben Artâ (MEW, p. 337). This text is identical in the first edition of Capital I (MEGA II/5). (In Reuten 2017, I translated âpotenzierteâ as âpotentiatedâ instead of âempoweredâ. [Ch. 15 of the current book].)
The same applies for the Moore and Aveling translation: âThe exceptionally productive labour operates as intensified labour â¦â (MECW 35, p. 323).
For more details about the issues of this subsection see Reuten 2017, §3.2â§3.4. [Ch. 15 of the current book.]
Cf. Marx {1864â65 ms} 2016 EBF, p. 47. Fowkes translates Gestaltungen as âformsâ.
For further details, comments and page references to the manuscript, see Reuten 2018, §2.
In Part Two, Ch. 9, we read: âThe specific degree of development of the social *productive power of labour* differs from one particular sphere of production to another, being higher or lower according to the quantity of means of production set in motion by a certain specific amount of labour ⦠Hence its degree of development depends on how small a quantity of labour is required for a certain quantity of means of production. We therefore call capitals that contain a greater percentage of constant capital than the social average ⦠capitals of higher compositionâ (EDF, pp. 263â4; cf. MEW, p. 173).
In Part Three, Chapter 13, Marx identifies the productive power of labour even more directly with the composition of capital: â⦠it has been shown to be a law of the capitalist mode of production that its development does in fact involve a relative decline in the relation of variable capital to constant, and hence also to the total capital set in motion. (â¦) This progressive decline ⦠is identical with the progressively rising organic composition, on average, of the social capital as a whole. It is just another expression for the progressive development of the social *productive power of labour* â¦â (EDF, p. 318; cf. MEW, p. 222).
Regarding the productive power of labour (Produktivkraft der Arbeit) Fowkes, the translator of the âCapital IIIâ manuscript, makes the same mistake again (Marx {1864â65 ms} 2016; EBF).
In an interesting paper Smith (2002, p. 158) rightfully points out that âinnovation trajectoriesâ diverge between sectors and he creatively âreconstructsâ their theorisation in terms of structural âsurplus profits from innovationâ at the level of Capital III â over prices of production. In face of the divergent empowerment of labour associated with productive powers, this can now be theorised in terms of super-profits associated with super rates of surplus-value.
In this letter Marx sets out his transformation of value to prices of production in about 50 printed lines, including the following key phrases: â⦠assuming the rate of surplus value, i.e., the exploitation of labour, as equal, the production of value and therefore the production of surplus value and therefore the rate of profit are different in different branches of production. ⦠this means that the price determination of the commodities must deviate from their values. ⦠The price ⦠which divides up the social surplus value equally among the various masses of capital in proportion to their sizes, is the price of production of commodities, the centre around which the oscillation of the market prices movesâ (MECW 43, pp. 23â4).
It is extremely difficult to translate these texts. Marxâs texts are unpolished and continuously mixed with shorthand phrases. Insertions in square brackets are from the MEGA editors. Insertions in braces with German original terms are mine.
A few more comments are in Reuten 2009, pp. 227â8, from which the text above is taken. [Chapter 14 below.]
First published in German and Russian in Arkhiv Marksa i Engelsa, vol. II (VII), Moscow 1933.
On the rate of profit, turnover of capital, interest and discount.
For internet access to the publications of Reuten, see
References
General references to Marxâs and Engelsâs works
MECW (Marx Engels Collective Works). http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/cw/index.html
MEGA (Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe). https://mega.bbaw.de/de/struktur/ii-abteilung
MEW (Marx-Engels Werke). https://marx-wirklich-studieren.net/marx-engels-werke-als-pdf-zum-download/
MIA (Marx-Engels Archive). https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm
Regarding the Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), the first number in Roman refers to the division of the MEGA (in the current article this is always division II, on Capital and the preparations for it); the second number in Arabic refers to the volume number (some volumes are again subdivided, in which case we have, e.g., MEGA II/4.2, where the last digit is the subdivision). There is also an earlier German collective works series around (the Marx-Engels Werke, MEW, which is fully available online). Quite a number of these works (not all of the MEGA) are available in English translation as the Marx Engels Collective Works (MECW).
All other references
General note. Superscripts after a year of publication refer to the edition of a work. For references to Marx the date in braces indicates the (probable) year of the manuscript, the year following it is the first year of publication.
Bellofiore, Riccardo 2005, âThe monetary aspects of the capitalist process in the Marxian system: an investigation from the point of view of the theory of the monetary circuitâ, in Marxâs theory of money: modern appraisals, edited by Fred Moseley, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 124â39.
Campbell, Martha 1997, âMarxâs theory of money: a defenseâ, in New investigations of Marxâs method, edited by Fred Moseley and Martha Campbell, Albany, NJ: Humanities Press, pp. 89â120.
Elson, Diane 1979, âThe value theory of labourâ, in Value: the representation of labour in capitalism, edited by Diane Elson, London: CSE Books, pp. 115â80.
Hubmann, Gerald, and Regina Roth 2013, âDie âKapitalâ-Abteilung der MEGA â Einleitung und Ãberblickâ, in Marx-Engels Jahrbuch 2012/13, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 60â9.
Marx, Karl {1864 ms}[19331] MEGA. âResultate des unmittelbaren Produktionsprozessesâ.25 In Ãkonomische Manuskripte 1863â1867, Teil 1. (Manuskripte 1864/65 zum 1. und 2. Buch des âKapitalâ). MEGA II/4.2:24â131.
Marx, Karl {1864 ms}[19331] MECW. âResults of the direct production processâ. Translation of Marx {1864 ms}[19331] MEGA by Ben Fowkes. MECW Vol. 34:355â466.
Marx, Karl {1864â65 ms}19931 MEGA. Ãkonomische Manuskripte 1863â1867, Teil 2: Manuskript 1863/65 zum 3. Buch des âKapitalâ, arranged and edited by Manfred Müller, Jürgen Jungnickel, Barbara Lietz, Christel Sander and Arthur Schnickmann. MEGA II/4.2, Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
Marx, Karl {1864â65 ms} 2016 EBF. Marxâs economic manuscript of 1864â1865. Translation of Marx {1864â65 ms}1993 MEGA by Ben Fowkes, edited by Fred Moseley, Leiden: Brill.
Marx, Karl {1878 ms} 20031 MEGA. âÃber Profitrate, Kapitalumschlag, Zins und Rabatâ.26 Edited by Carl-Erich Vollgraf and Regina Roth with collaboration of Jürgen Jungnickel, in MEGA II/14, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 155â62.
Marx, Karl 18904 [18671] MEW. Das Kapital, Kritik der Politischen Ãkonomie; Erster Band, Der Produktionsprozeà des Kapitals, 4th edition, edited by Friedrich Engels, MEW, Volume 23, Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
Marx, Karl 18904 [18671] EBF. Capital: a critique of political economy, vol. I. Translation of Marx 18904 MEW by Ben Fowkes, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976.
Marx, Karl 18932 [18851] EBF. Das Kapital, Kritik der Politischen Ãkonomie, Zweiter Band, Der Zirkulationsprozess des Kapitals. Edited by Friedrich Engels, MEW, Vol. 24, Berlin: Dietz Verlag. Referred to in the translation by David Fernbach, Capital: a critique of political economy, volume II, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1978.
Marx, Karl 1894 MEW. Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ãkonomie. Dritter Band, Der Gesamtprozeà der kapitalistischen Produktion. Edited by Friedrich Engels, MEW Volume 25, Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
Marx, Karl 1894 EDF. Capital: a critique of political economy, volume III. Translation of Marx 1894 MEW by David Fernbach, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1981.
Reuten, Geert 1993, âThe difficult labour of a theory of social value: metaphors and systematic dialectics at the beginning of Marxâs Capitalâ, in Marxâs method in Capital: a re-examination, edited by Fred Moseley, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, pp. 89â113.27
Reuten, Geert 2004, âProductive force and the degree of intensity of labour â Marxâs concepts and formalizations in the middle part of Capital Iâ, in The constitution of capital: essays on volume I of Marxâs âCapitalâ, edited by Riccardo Bellofiore and Nicola Taylor, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117â45.
Reuten, Geert 2009, âMarxâs general rate of profit transformation: methodological, theoretical and philological obstacles â an appraisal based on the 1864â65 manuscript of Das Kapital IIIâ, in Re-reading Marx: new perspectives after the critical edition, edited by Riccardo Bellofiore and Roberto Fineschi, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 211â30.
Reuten, Geert 2017, âThe productive powers of labour and the redundant transformation to prices of production: a Marx-immanent critique and reconstructionâ, Historical Materialism, 25(3): 3â35.
Reuten, Geert 2018, âThe redundant transformation to prices of production: a Marx-immanent critique and reconstructionâ, in Marxâs âCapitalâ: an unfinished and unfinishable project?, edited by Marcel van der Linden and Gerald Hubmann, Leiden: Brill, pp. 157â94.
Schefold, Bertram 2004, âEinführung zu MEGA II/15â, in Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ãkonomie, Dritter Band, MEGA II/15, pp. 871â910.
Smith, Tony 2002, âSurplus profits from innovation: a missing level in Capital III?â, in The culmination of capital: essays on volume III of Marxâs âCapitalâ, edited by Martha Campbell and Geert Reuten, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 149â73.
Sweezy, Paul M. 1968 [1942], The theory of capitalist development, New York: Modern Reader Paperbacks.
Vollgraf, Carl-Erich 2012, âEinführung zu MEGA II/4.3â, in MEGA II/4.3, pp. 421â74.
Vollgraf, Carl-Erich 2018, âMarxâs further work on Capital after publishing volume 1: on the completion of Part II of the MEGA²â, in Marxâs âCapitalâ: an unfinished and unfinishable project?, edited by Marcel van der Linden and Gerald Hubmann, Leiden: Brill, pp. 56â79.
Vollgraf, Carl-Erich, and Regina Roth (with collaboration of Jürgen Jungnickel) 2003, âIntroduction, contextualization, and notes on the genesis and handing down of the MEGA II/14 textsâ, in MEGA II/14: 381â489, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 56â79.
Williams, Michael 2000, âWhy Marx neither has nor needs a commodity theory of moneyâ, Review of Political Economy, 12(4): 435â51.