This paper discusses some recent developments in the Marxian theory of value, called value-form theory, which have gone along with a methodological shift from a linear logic and historical dialectics to a dialectical logic and systematic dialectics. In order to appreciate these developments within the Marxian paradigm, it is useful to make two introductory remarks: first, on some peculiarities of Marxian discourse and, second, about discrepancies in Marx's Capital.

The famous Marxian ‘transformation problem’ originated from a research manuscript written by Marx in 1864/65, from which Engels assembledCapitaliii. Unequal capital compositions, equal rates of surplus-value and equal rates of profit among different sectors are posited, and reconciled using the problematic concept of ‘prices of production’. Yet the assumption of equal rates of surplus-value is at odds with the subsequent text ofCapitali, where Marx presents various determinants of the rate of surplus-value, and connects productive powers of labour diverging between sectors (...) with divergentvalue-generating potenciesof labour. Given the other determinants, diverging rates of surplus-value then result. Marx disregarded these productive power differentials when he originally formulated his transformation. In a reconstruction, building onCapitali, this omission is rectified. It makes prices of production and hence the dual account systems redundant. The transformation problem then evaporates. (shrink)

In discussions of the composition of wealth, a common distinction is made between non-financial assets and financial assets. Within the latter category the uncommon distinction is drawn between ‘capital ownership assets’ (referring to ownership in enterprises) and other financial assets. The reason is that capital ownership assets come with a degree of actual or potential economic power – in the sense of having the capacity to significantly influence enterprises’ policies. The article empirically applies this distinction to 24 OECD countries that (...) report uniform data on this (in line with the OECD guidelines). For the OECD average of these countries around 2019, it is shown that whereas the top 10% of households owns 51% of the total net wealth and 68% of the total financial assets, the top 10% owns 85% of the total capital-ownership assets. For individual OECD countries, the last figure ranges from 63% (Greece) to 97% (Lithuania). The figure for the USA is near to the latter, at 94%. (shrink)

Welfare expenditure is under attack, so that a grasp of the determinants of welfare policy is timely. Neither functionalist nor instrumentalist theory, whether of a Marxist or mainstream kind, has been successful here. This paper offers a systematic presentation of the bourgeois state and of its interdependence with the economy, of which welfare policy is a key aspect. Controversially, the systemic necessity of welfare policy grounds a right to existence not adequately sustained by the value-form determination of the economy, reproduced (...) by market mechanisms: formal equality of process does not ensure equity of outcome. The state is thus faced with a problem of managing the conflicting demands of economic efficiency and individual's right to existence, while at the same time maintaining the autonomy of the economy. (shrink)