What do you think?
Rate this book
Value: The Representation of Labour in Capitalism
This influential collection of essays focuses on the elusive concept of "value," and aims to answer the question "Why is Marx’s theory of value so important?" Aboo Aumeeruddy and Ramon Tortajada introduce the key interpretive debates surrounding "value form," leading to seminal essays by Jairus Banaji and Chris Arthur. The labour theory of value is interrogated by Geoffrey Kay and Athar Hussain, and Diane Elson concludes with an argument for the importance of Marx’s "Value Theory of Labour." These incisive and erudite texts provide a crucial introduction to Marxist political economy, as well as advancing critical arguments for those already well versed in the field.
With contributions by Chris Arthur, Aboo Aumeeruddy, Jairus Banaji, Diane Elson, Athar Hussain, Makoto Itoh, Geoffrey Kay, Ramon Tortajada, and Nobuharu Yokokawa.
With contributions by Chris Arthur, Aboo Aumeeruddy, Jairus Banaji, Diane Elson, Athar Hussain, Makoto Itoh, Geoffrey Kay, Ramon Tortajada, and Nobuharu Yokokawa.
192 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1980
9 people are currently reading
306 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
February 1, 2018
I should note from the outset that I didn't read all of the essays in this book-- and yet it still earned all five stars.
Diane Elson's title essay should be required reading for English-speaking Marxists, as it provides a useful corrective to those interpretations of Marx's value theory which fail to enact any critique of political economy--framing Capital as a 'recipe book for cook shops' and all that. Traditionally, Anglo-Saxon Marxist-Economists have attempted to defend Marx's theories by showing that the (/Ricardo's) labor theory of value accurately or really predicts market prices. While this is probably true in most cases, there is no particularly convincing way to test this assertion empirically--the researcher quite obviously has no access to detailed data on labor times, let alone socially necessary labor times across various sectors of the economy. As the subtitle of the book suggests, Elson finds the prime importance of Marx's 'law of value' not in the labor theory of value that he inherits (in part) from Ricardo, but in a certain value theory of labor:
"It is not a matter of seeking an explanation of why prices are the way they are and finding it in labour. But rather of seeking an understanding of why labor takes the form that it does, and what the political consequences are." (p. 123)
This is straightforward enough. Elson's great achievement is to make this claim while simultaneously incorporating the insights of Banaji ('Modes of Production...' 1997; 'From the Commodity to Capital...' 1979), and Arthur ('Dialectic of the Value Form' 1979), as well as those of Makoto Itoh, Kozo Uno and a whole host of others. Elson, of course, is also attentive to the critiques of Marxist theory put forth by Althusser and his disciples.
Some of these writers have often, but not always, tended to depoliticise Marx's work by over-emphasizing the fact that he framed his theory as a 'critique' of political economy. In this view--which Elson shares, to a point--Marx's value theory is not a proof of exploitation. The arguments made to support this claim have often landed their authors in the swamp of shameless and simple revisionism (excising the revolutionary essence of Marxism, its relevance for working people), but they do have the merit of accurately assessing certain dialectical aspects of Marx's work which have often been left unexamined (These aspects are detailed effectively by Banaji and Arthur in this volume). This dialectical content was obviously important to Marx's theories, but it was subsumed in the revisions of Capital which followed the release of the first edition. The question: can Socialists return to this content in order to revitalize Marx's theories for a new century of revolution, reuniting the dialectics of the value-form with day-to-day organizing?
----
Elson details the political importance of Marx's value theory as follows:
"... firstly, the theory of value enables us to analyse capitalist exploitation in a way that overcomes the fragmentation of the experience of the exploitation;..."
By analyzing Value in its aspects, by drawing out the essence of labor through the form of its appearance, Marx's Value theory demonstrates that under Capitalism, concrete labor operates as a one-sided abstraction, and abstract labor dominates the former as a universal without ever losing its one-sided character. In Elson's view, this provides for a (dialectical) joint comprehension with respect to the subjective and objective aspects of exploitation as they operate under capitalism. Socialist theory has too often defaulted on a simplistic division between the economic 'base' and the non-economic 'superstructure', and in Anglo-Saxon political theory, the perceived sharpness of this distinction has made it difficult to attend to those exploitative phenomena deemed 'cultural' or derivative with respect to economics (race, identity, etc.). In Elson's interpretation of Marx, there is no contradiction between the 'experience' of exploitation and the objective fact of that exploitation's economic essence: the latter has its being expressed in the former. To quote a comrade of mine: 'The class struggle is primary, but that does not mean that the 'race struggle' is secondary.'
----
"... secondly, it enables us to grasp capitalist exploitation as a contradictory, crisis-ridden process, subject to continual change;..."
"... thirdly, it builds into our understanding of how the process of exploitation works, the possibility of action to end it." (all quotations page 171)
How do we get past Capitalism? Marxists have tended to emphasize one or the other component of Marx's theory:
One the one hand, we have those Marxists who employ Marx's theses on the declining rate of profit, determining Capital as a process which eventually runs itself into extinction. On the other, we find those who have emphasized Marx's analysis of the cycling industrial crisis, framing the latter as a space for voluntaristic intervention. These distinctions correspond (very) roughly, respectively, to the positions of actually-existing socialism's academic critics [capital-logic approach in particular] and to the position of principled Socialists-- active organizers eager to implement socialism at the first possible opportunity. Elson, at least as far as I can tell, falls firmly into the latter camp, but as I alluded to earlier, her great merit is to take what is useful from the former camp and make it applicable for working socialists. In her interpretation of Marx, there is no contradiction between the persistent, asubjective, dialectical logic of the value form and our organized, definitively concrete responses to the oppression which consists in that form's unfolding.
Diane Elson's title essay should be required reading for English-speaking Marxists, as it provides a useful corrective to those interpretations of Marx's value theory which fail to enact any critique of political economy--framing Capital as a 'recipe book for cook shops' and all that. Traditionally, Anglo-Saxon Marxist-Economists have attempted to defend Marx's theories by showing that the (/Ricardo's) labor theory of value accurately or really predicts market prices. While this is probably true in most cases, there is no particularly convincing way to test this assertion empirically--the researcher quite obviously has no access to detailed data on labor times, let alone socially necessary labor times across various sectors of the economy. As the subtitle of the book suggests, Elson finds the prime importance of Marx's 'law of value' not in the labor theory of value that he inherits (in part) from Ricardo, but in a certain value theory of labor:
"It is not a matter of seeking an explanation of why prices are the way they are and finding it in labour. But rather of seeking an understanding of why labor takes the form that it does, and what the political consequences are." (p. 123)
This is straightforward enough. Elson's great achievement is to make this claim while simultaneously incorporating the insights of Banaji ('Modes of Production...' 1997; 'From the Commodity to Capital...' 1979), and Arthur ('Dialectic of the Value Form' 1979), as well as those of Makoto Itoh, Kozo Uno and a whole host of others. Elson, of course, is also attentive to the critiques of Marxist theory put forth by Althusser and his disciples.
Some of these writers have often, but not always, tended to depoliticise Marx's work by over-emphasizing the fact that he framed his theory as a 'critique' of political economy. In this view--which Elson shares, to a point--Marx's value theory is not a proof of exploitation. The arguments made to support this claim have often landed their authors in the swamp of shameless and simple revisionism (excising the revolutionary essence of Marxism, its relevance for working people), but they do have the merit of accurately assessing certain dialectical aspects of Marx's work which have often been left unexamined (These aspects are detailed effectively by Banaji and Arthur in this volume). This dialectical content was obviously important to Marx's theories, but it was subsumed in the revisions of Capital which followed the release of the first edition. The question: can Socialists return to this content in order to revitalize Marx's theories for a new century of revolution, reuniting the dialectics of the value-form with day-to-day organizing?
----
Elson details the political importance of Marx's value theory as follows:
"... firstly, the theory of value enables us to analyse capitalist exploitation in a way that overcomes the fragmentation of the experience of the exploitation;..."
By analyzing Value in its aspects, by drawing out the essence of labor through the form of its appearance, Marx's Value theory demonstrates that under Capitalism, concrete labor operates as a one-sided abstraction, and abstract labor dominates the former as a universal without ever losing its one-sided character. In Elson's view, this provides for a (dialectical) joint comprehension with respect to the subjective and objective aspects of exploitation as they operate under capitalism. Socialist theory has too often defaulted on a simplistic division between the economic 'base' and the non-economic 'superstructure', and in Anglo-Saxon political theory, the perceived sharpness of this distinction has made it difficult to attend to those exploitative phenomena deemed 'cultural' or derivative with respect to economics (race, identity, etc.). In Elson's interpretation of Marx, there is no contradiction between the 'experience' of exploitation and the objective fact of that exploitation's economic essence: the latter has its being expressed in the former. To quote a comrade of mine: 'The class struggle is primary, but that does not mean that the 'race struggle' is secondary.'
----
"... secondly, it enables us to grasp capitalist exploitation as a contradictory, crisis-ridden process, subject to continual change;..."
"... thirdly, it builds into our understanding of how the process of exploitation works, the possibility of action to end it." (all quotations page 171)
How do we get past Capitalism? Marxists have tended to emphasize one or the other component of Marx's theory:
One the one hand, we have those Marxists who employ Marx's theses on the declining rate of profit, determining Capital as a process which eventually runs itself into extinction. On the other, we find those who have emphasized Marx's analysis of the cycling industrial crisis, framing the latter as a space for voluntaristic intervention. These distinctions correspond (very) roughly, respectively, to the positions of actually-existing socialism's academic critics [capital-logic approach in particular] and to the position of principled Socialists-- active organizers eager to implement socialism at the first possible opportunity. Elson, at least as far as I can tell, falls firmly into the latter camp, but as I alluded to earlier, her great merit is to take what is useful from the former camp and make it applicable for working socialists. In her interpretation of Marx, there is no contradiction between the persistent, asubjective, dialectical logic of the value form and our organized, definitively concrete responses to the oppression which consists in that form's unfolding.
July 24, 2010
This is a classic, where Terry Turner got his "value theory of labor" from. I've been meaning to re-read it for years.
February 22, 2015
an early, useful collection of essays on value-form theory in Englisch. very provisional--Elson's piece basically seems extemporaneous, but it's good. Banaji (the historian) makes an interesting contribution based on his reading of Hegel. Geoff Kay's defense of Marx against Boehm-Bawerk is basically retread. Hussain runs through Althusser--meh. Itoh's piece i've never read but should. Elson's piece is good and one of the few critical engagements with Rubin that can be found in Englisch (Killicof and Starsota is the other, along with Saadh-Filho and Fine). like i said, it openly is guessing at "what Marx meant" at points but it's worthwhile despite feeling unfinished--distinctly less jargony than pieces like Chris Arthur's, whom I respect but who is not an effective writer--he basically relies on Hegelian-Marxist language that is only for initiates to explain difficult Hegelian-Marxist concepts. Elson, by contrast, is sharp but an economist and so has a certain orientation towards the practical that comes in handy for such abstruse stuff. Elson really works through the implications of the theory and what it actually means in non-Marxist-jargon (although she gets some things wrong) instead of just reasserting stuff, which better interpreters such as Heinrich tend not to do.
overall--worth reading for Banaji's somewhat punctilious but productive essay and Elson. not the best CSE work, though. bonus: lots of smackdowns of hyper-Althusserians Cutler, Hindess and Hirst, who have (rightly) been almost entirely forgotten by posterity but whose influence at the time must have been quite great (nearly all English value-theory at the time tries to engage critically with them).
overall--worth reading for Banaji's somewhat punctilious but productive essay and Elson. not the best CSE work, though. bonus: lots of smackdowns of hyper-Althusserians Cutler, Hindess and Hirst, who have (rightly) been almost entirely forgotten by posterity but whose influence at the time must have been quite great (nearly all English value-theory at the time tries to engage critically with them).
April 25, 2016
Qué bien volver a colocar este conjunto de ensayos básicos para intentar -ya no digo responder- por lo menos, entender la dimensión que alcanza la gran pregunta que nos mantiene siempre en alerta: Why is Marx’s theory of value so important?�
October 23, 2018
Highly recommended esp. for working through chapter 1 of Capital
July 10, 2024
"Value: Representation of Labour in Capitalism" is a collection of essays from the Conference of Socialist Economists, each emphasizing Marx's value theory as foundational to understanding capitalism. But do they all succeed in doing so?
The first essay, "Reading Marx on Value: A Note on the Basic Texts" by Aboo Aumeeruddy and Ramon Tortajada provides an annotated guide to Marx's writings on value theory. They emphasize the tension of Marx's incomplete break from classical political economy. While useful, the guide is outdated given the research coming out of MEGA2 since the publication of this book. In addition, they fail to contextualize the development of Marx's critique of political economy by presenting his writings out of order, leading one to believe that the Marx of the 1844 Paris Manuscripts are easily commensurable with the Marx of the "Notes on Wagner."
"From the Commodity to Capital: Hegel's Dialectic in Marx's Capital," by Jairus Banaji is a highlight in the collection that helps to stress the importance of Hegel's dialectics to Marx's argumentation in the first chapter of "Capital" even as it rests on the problematic distinction of "capital in general" and "many capitals."
Geoffrey Kay's "Why Labour is the starting point of Capital" is less impressive, conflating individual/social and concrete/abstract labor categories. Chris Arthur's "Dialectic of the Value-Form" is tightly argued but focused on a specific argument on why Marx's development of the value-form does not follow formal logic which is not terribly interesting.
The weakest link of this collection, Athar Hussain's "Misreading Marx's Theory of Value: Marx's Marginal Notes on Wagner" seems more concerned with validating Althusser's framework than analyzing Marx's text. Makoto Itoh's "Marx's Theory of Market-Value" sits uneasily in this collection as it delves into specific Japanese debates on market value in Volume III of "Capital," with limited relevance to broader discussions of Marx's value theory. Most of it went over my head to be frank.
The last and lengthiest essay comes from Diane Elson, "The Value Theory of Labour." This essay is practically a must-read for English-speaking Marxists of an exposition of Marx's value theory that breaks from the problematic of the orthodox Ricardian readings of "Capital."
Let us return to the original question, do these essays reinforce the central importance of Marx's value theory? With the exception of Elson's own essay, mostly no. Most of the value (ha) of this collection really only comes from its final and central essay, with the rest being situated in particular debates of the 1970s. Other than Elson's, Banaji's essay is worth checking out as an early Anglophone defense of the importance of Hegel for "Capital" and as the work of a historian dipping his toes into theory.
The first essay, "Reading Marx on Value: A Note on the Basic Texts" by Aboo Aumeeruddy and Ramon Tortajada provides an annotated guide to Marx's writings on value theory. They emphasize the tension of Marx's incomplete break from classical political economy. While useful, the guide is outdated given the research coming out of MEGA2 since the publication of this book. In addition, they fail to contextualize the development of Marx's critique of political economy by presenting his writings out of order, leading one to believe that the Marx of the 1844 Paris Manuscripts are easily commensurable with the Marx of the "Notes on Wagner."
"From the Commodity to Capital: Hegel's Dialectic in Marx's Capital," by Jairus Banaji is a highlight in the collection that helps to stress the importance of Hegel's dialectics to Marx's argumentation in the first chapter of "Capital" even as it rests on the problematic distinction of "capital in general" and "many capitals."
Geoffrey Kay's "Why Labour is the starting point of Capital" is less impressive, conflating individual/social and concrete/abstract labor categories. Chris Arthur's "Dialectic of the Value-Form" is tightly argued but focused on a specific argument on why Marx's development of the value-form does not follow formal logic which is not terribly interesting.
The weakest link of this collection, Athar Hussain's "Misreading Marx's Theory of Value: Marx's Marginal Notes on Wagner" seems more concerned with validating Althusser's framework than analyzing Marx's text. Makoto Itoh's "Marx's Theory of Market-Value" sits uneasily in this collection as it delves into specific Japanese debates on market value in Volume III of "Capital," with limited relevance to broader discussions of Marx's value theory. Most of it went over my head to be frank.
The last and lengthiest essay comes from Diane Elson, "The Value Theory of Labour." This essay is practically a must-read for English-speaking Marxists of an exposition of Marx's value theory that breaks from the problematic of the orthodox Ricardian readings of "Capital."
Let us return to the original question, do these essays reinforce the central importance of Marx's value theory? With the exception of Elson's own essay, mostly no. Most of the value (ha) of this collection really only comes from its final and central essay, with the rest being situated in particular debates of the 1970s. Other than Elson's, Banaji's essay is worth checking out as an early Anglophone defense of the importance of Hegel for "Capital" and as the work of a historian dipping his toes into theory.
December 26, 2020
Picked this up randomly tbh, but am very glad I did. Two essays from the book stands out as particularly enlightening; Diane Elson's "The Value Theory of Labour" and Jairus Banaji's "From Commodity to Capital: Hegel's Dialectic in Marx's Capital". Both these I find especially good to visit immediately after you finish Volume 1 of Capital. (The latter might require a basic grasp of Hegel).
A few of the articles deal with Bohm-Bawerk's critique of Marx's theory of value and the so-called 'transformation problem' both directly and indirectly, and from how common these critiques resurface whenever Marx is brought up, it should be plenty of help.
A few of the articles deal with Bohm-Bawerk's critique of Marx's theory of value and the so-called 'transformation problem' both directly and indirectly, and from how common these critiques resurface whenever Marx is brought up, it should be plenty of help.
January 25, 2023
A thought-provoking collection of essays. Some more interesting than others, some did better than others in avoiding unnecessary academic jargon, but overall a lot of important points raised to hit back at trends in misrepresenting Marx that continue to this day. Elson's title essay is a very important contribution to Marxist thought, and I agree with most of her points. I'll have to return to this collection in the future- some aspects I did not have the background to fully understand. Looking forward to rereading some of Marx's works in this new light, definitely clarified some fuzzy areas and confirmed some half-formed thoughts I'd had.
October 17, 2020
I finally understand Capital because of this book
February 16, 2016
review to follow
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.