A further critique of Fine and Saad-Filho's reading of Marxist political economy: it neglects the monetary dimension of Marx's analysis; it focuses too much on production, and on the organic composition of capital, treated in isolation from the overall circuit of capital. An alternative theorisation is proposed, stressing what will now be called emergence patterns in Marx's value theory, and giving due weight to circulation, realisation, competition and capital allocation.

This article assess two important recent books on Marx's political economy and argues that, despite many virtues, there are some crucial limitations in their approach to Marx's political economy. Ben Fine's and Alfredo Saad-Filho's Marx's 'Capital' and The Value of Marx by Saad-Filho place too much explanatory weight on the composition of capital, giving too little attention to Marx's analysis of money, and to the processes of circulation and realisation.

In a review of our work, Kincaid suggests that we are 'productivist', reducing interpretation of Marx and capitalism to production at the expense of the relatively independent role that can be played by the value-form in general and by the money-form in particular. In response, we argue that he distorts interpretation of our work through this prism of production versus exchange, unduly emphasises the independence of exchange to the point of underconsumptionism, and simplistically collapses the mediation between production and exchange (...) in the restructuring that accompanies the accumulation of capital. (shrink)

Prompted by the debate over Michael Lebowitz's contributions on the relative absence of class struggle in Marx's Capital, this paper seeks to push analysis forward by closer examination of the notion of the value of labour-power. It does so by arguing that labour markets are structured, reproduced and transformed in complex and differentiated ways, whilst the moral and historical elements that make up the use-value interpretation of the value of labour-power also need to be addressed in a differentiated manner rather (...) than as a fixed bundle. (shrink)

Marx’s _Capital _has of course been widely read; this revival of a systematic study by Geoffrey Pilling, originally published in 1980, argues powerfully that, in order to understand _Capital _fully, it is necessary to have read and understood Hegel’s _Logic_. This argument leads to a detailed examination of the opening chapters of Capital, and a re-examination of their significance for the work as a whole. Pilling emphasizes the fundamental nature of the break between Marx’s _Capital _and all forms of classical (...) political economy, and stresses the revolutionary nature of Marx’s critique of political economy as one of the foundations of _Capital_. He also lays particular emphasis on the philosophical aspects of the work, so often neglected by British commentators, and puts forward the view that Marx’s notion of fetishism, often looked upon as incidental to his work, is in fact central to his entire critique of political economy. (shrink)