Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Circulation of Capital: Essays on Volume Two of Marx's Capital

The Circulation of Capital: Essays on Volume Two of Marx's Capital Book Reviews inspected the volume 2 manuscripts. I wonder why Levine was not invited to the conference so that he could defend himself (and contribute to the book). Martha Campbell’s chapter on Marx’s theory of money breaks off just as she gets to the intriguing and important question of the links between Marx and postKeynesian monetary analysis. As Marc Lavoie (1992) has shown, the volume 2 account of the circulation process was a major source of inspiration for French and Italian theorists of the monetary circuit, and it also foreshadowed Keynes’s conception of a monetary production economy. It is regrettable that Campbell does not pursue these themes. The chapter by Fred Moseley is disfigured by hackneyed denunciations of “the neo-Ricardians.” It centers on Moseley’s claim that the principal purpose of Marx’s reproduction models was “to refute [Adam] Smith’s dogma, the erroneous view that the total price of the total social product is entirely resolved into revenue” (182). He does not explain why Marx should have chosen such a long and heavy sledgehammer to crack this particular nut. Moseley concludes that “the quantities in Marx’s reproduction tables in Part 3 of Volume Two of Capital and related drafts are http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png History of Political Economy Duke University Press

The Circulation of Capital: Essays on Volume Two of Marx's Capital

History of Political Economy , Volume 32 (4) – Dec 1, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/the-circulation-of-capital-essays-on-volume-two-of-marx-s-capital-e4Q2kzxwVF
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2000 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0018-2702
eISSN
1527-1919
DOI
10.1215/00182702-32-4-1045
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Book Reviews inspected the volume 2 manuscripts. I wonder why Levine was not invited to the conference so that he could defend himself (and contribute to the book). Martha Campbell’s chapter on Marx’s theory of money breaks off just as she gets to the intriguing and important question of the links between Marx and postKeynesian monetary analysis. As Marc Lavoie (1992) has shown, the volume 2 account of the circulation process was a major source of inspiration for French and Italian theorists of the monetary circuit, and it also foreshadowed Keynes’s conception of a monetary production economy. It is regrettable that Campbell does not pursue these themes. The chapter by Fred Moseley is disfigured by hackneyed denunciations of “the neo-Ricardians.” It centers on Moseley’s claim that the principal purpose of Marx’s reproduction models was “to refute [Adam] Smith’s dogma, the erroneous view that the total price of the total social product is entirely resolved into revenue” (182). He does not explain why Marx should have chosen such a long and heavy sledgehammer to crack this particular nut. Moseley concludes that “the quantities in Marx’s reproduction tables in Part 3 of Volume Two of Capital and related drafts are

Journal

History of Political EconomyDuke University Press

Published: Dec 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.