AbstractThis article aims to offer a reply to Steedman’s critique of Marx’s labour theory of value. Although this critique having been there for 30 years before, the anti-critiques from Marxists are up to date flawed with fatal limitedness, losing sight of an important dimension of labour theory of value, i.e., without taking it as a theoretical tool of understanding the uncertainty rooted in capitalist reproduction.

This article consists of the following parts, the first part is a introduction of the controversy invoked by Ian Steedman. Part 2 is a retrospect of Marx’s dual theory of market value. Part 3 explores the possible reconstruction of market value in the perspective of the dynamics in the pivoting of market value. In the part of conclusion, a formal reply to Steedman is attempted, that the relationship between the standard condition of production and value is not of deterministic and one-way character. Labor theory of value in Marx’s economics is applied to analyze the uncertain relation between the means and the end, the condition and the result of capitalist reproduction. Meanwhile, another reply is attempted as well towards the negative comment on labor theory of value made by evolutionary economist as G. Hodgson. In our view, Marx’s labour theory of value is not irrelevant as claimed by Hodgson to the main topics of evolutionary economics such as diversity and ‘natural selection’. It is through labour theory of value that Marx explains the co-evolution of technical change and capital accumulation process.

Loading...

未加载完，尝试【刷新】or【关闭小说模式】or【关闭广告屏蔽】。

尝试更换【Firefox浏览器】or【Chrome谷歌浏览器】打开多多收藏！

移动流量偶尔打不开，可以切换电信、联通、Wifi。

收藏网址：www.finalbooks.work

(＞人＜；)