Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory?

Date: Wed Mar 14 2007 - 04:45:08 EDT

---------------------------- Original Message -------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:06:40 +0100
From: Riccardo Bellofiore <>
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory?

Inclination, yes. Time, no. So the point is if you are willing to
accept from me quick and short answers written in a hurry.

The need to explain form where money comes from ALWAYS exist. You
have to explain the first inflow. In your case, happens that the
finance is a self-revolving fund (as Keynes said in 1937-9). It is
ALMOST authomatic. But if you think, as me, that banks finance
firms' production processes, then you explain the inflow and also
that the decision to renew that fund must be repeated at each cycle.

With non-commodity bank money, with no intrinsic value,
money-capital has however, in my vue, a "labour-content", if the
class working class "subsistence", or any how the class working
class reeal consumption, is taken as given.

So, I think there is a connection between our problematics. I just
disagree in imputing Sraffa what is not to be attributed to him.

Hope that clarifies something, and thanks for the patience.


>At 15:14 -0800 13-03-2007, Ian Wright wrote:
>>Hi Riccardo
>>I note your points about Sraffa.
>>>My problem really is that it does not explain, amongst other things,
>>>from where money comes into the system.
>>>Yes, but I think that may be one can model a closure on the side of
>>>real distribution of income.
>>In the special case of self-reproducing equilibrium your two remarks
>>are related I think. Assume non-commodity money. If the real
>>distribution of income is considered given data then we can
>>- calculate the money-capital required to initiate the period of production
>>- derive the equality that the rate of profit is the price of money-capital
>>Because there is no technical change, and reproduction continues
>>undisturbed, there is no need for money to enter the system, it is
>>simply conserved. So in this special case there is no need to explain
>>where the money comes from.
>>In Marx's theory price is a necessary form of value. But, as far as I
>>can tell, he doesn't ask the question: what labour-time might the
>>price of money-capital refer to? In your approach, do you tackle this
>>Please reply only if you have the time and inclination.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT