Re: [OPE] Jan Toporowski on Marxian theory of money

From: John Milios <>
Date: Sat Oct 04 2008 - 06:48:46 EDT


There can be also other interpretations of the Marx-Hilferding
relationship: _Finance Capital_ does not constitute a "transformation
for the 20th century" but a paradigm shift (or a revision of Marx's
theoretical SYSTEM). See, e.g. "Did Hilferding influence Schumpeter?"
by Panayotis G. Michaelides and John Milios, _History of Economics
Review_, Vol. 41, June/July 2005, pp. 98-125,
or on my personal webpage:

(esp. pp. 111-119):

"Hilferding's thought in Finance Capital constitutes a major revision
of Marx's 'macroeconomic' theoretical system in favour of a
'microeconomic' point of view, that seeks causality in the individual
enterprise. Hilferding reversed the Marxian flow of cause and effect
in the relationship between social and individual capital. In the new
paradigm introduced with Finance Capital, it is the individual capital
(monopolistic enterprise) which takes the causal role, and thus
determines the main features and the mode of evolution of the economy
as a whole (of social capital)."

In solidarity,


On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Jurriaan Bendien <> wrote:
> "Perhaps the real difficulty for the Marxian monetary analysis... arises
> from taking as its starting point axioms drawn from Marx's fundamental
> critique of mid-nineteenth-century capitalism. Such a starting point then
> requires a Rudolph Hilferding to transform the analysis for the twentieth
> century, and a similar genius to transform that twentieth-century analysis
> for our present post-Hilferding age, if it is to avoid degenerating into an
> eclectic search for elements of current analysis that can be used to provide
> support for relics of past ideas."
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list

ope mailing list
Received on Sat Oct 4 06:50:31 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 15:12:03 EST