Krugman on Marx

Mathew Forstater forstate at levy.org
Thu Aug 13 09:59:19 PDT 1998


Paul Henry Rosenberg wrote:


> I had the impression [Sraffa's critique of neoclassical theory and alternative
> price theory] left the LTV looking much better than the
> neo-classical alternative.
>
> With all the economists on this list, maybe I can finally get
> enlightened on this.
>
> --
> Paul Rosenberg
> Reason and Democracy
> rad at gte.net
>
> "Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"

There are differing opinions on the implications of Sraffa's work for Marxian value theory. Some argue that Sraffa's work is not only a refutation of neoclassical value theory but of the labor thery of value as well. Others consider Sraffa's a solution to the problems that plagued the Classical Economists and Marx. Others say that Sraffa's work doesn't so much show that the LTV is wrong as that it is simply "redundant." It seems pretty clear that Sraffa was a huge admirer of Marx, considered himself a Marxist, thought that Marx represented the zenith of Classical Political Economy (a term Marx coined), while at the same time providing a critique of CPE, but that Marx's economics had more in common with a tradition going back to Ricardo, Smith and the Physiocrats and Petty, than either Marx or the Classics had in common with marginalism (neoclassical economics). For Sraffa marginalism was the enemy, and the goal was the revival or reconstruction of the Classical tradition, which included or was best represented by Marx. But some of Sraffa's followers have had heated and bitter disagreements with some Marxists about value theory. There are a few edited volumes that focus on these issues, and debates that took place in Cambridge Journal of Economics.

Don't know if this helps.

Mat



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list