Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Kritik der Marxschen Mehrwerttheorie

Michael Burchardt
Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftswissenschaften / Review of Economics
Bd. 46, H. 2 (1995), pp. 121-137
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20714811
Page Count: 17
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Kritik der Marxschen Mehrwerttheorie
Preview not available

Abstract

This article deals with the content of the Marxian theory of surplus value, in particular its logical consistency. It is argued that the special characteristics of labour being both a source of value and non-reproducible under capitalistic conditions should lead one to measure its value directly by working-time hours. This is to be favoured over the Marxian approach of reproduction costs, i. e., the summation of working hours necessary to produce the commodities for workers' subsistency. Furthermore, it is shown that the reproduction cost approach leads to an indeterminateness in the value of labour as a commodity since, as Marx himself was ready to concede, this value includes both historical and moral components. These cannot be quantified exactly. Because, in the course of time, productivity has generally been increasing, one could think about a modification of the reproduction cost approach by taking these costs to rise continuously. This means assuming a gradual improvement in the standard of living or, respectively, in the value of labour. Such a dichotomy in the theory of value, however, — for labour as a commodity on the one hand and all other commodities on the other — was not intended by Marx. The indeterminateness of the value of labour makes the derivation of surplus value indeterminate as well. By relying on the Marxian explanation, it is not possible to produce more than the qualitative statement that capitalists appropriate an indeterminate share of the surplus value created by workers. Rather than being solved according to the Marxian theory of wage or surplus value, the distributional struggle between social classes is the result of negotiations between the two parties (or, for that matter, the social classes) on the labour market. Neither in the short nor in the long run does the wage move to the level as quantified by the theory of labour value.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[121]
    [121]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
122
    122
  • Thumbnail: Page 
123
    123
  • Thumbnail: Page 
124
    124
  • Thumbnail: Page 
125
    125
  • Thumbnail: Page 
126
    126
  • Thumbnail: Page 
127
    127
  • Thumbnail: Page 
128
    128
  • Thumbnail: Page 
129
    129
  • Thumbnail: Page 
130
    130
  • Thumbnail: Page 
131
    131
  • Thumbnail: Page 
132
    132
  • Thumbnail: Page 
133
    133
  • Thumbnail: Page 
134
    134
  • Thumbnail: Page 
135
    135
  • Thumbnail: Page 
136
    136
  • Thumbnail: Page 
137
    137