- Welcome now, officially, I'm Paul North. I teach critical theory at Yale. I'm happy to present today's
speaker in the series that I'm hosting together with my colleague at Ohio
State University, Paul Reitter. The series is called "The
Value of Marx's Capital". And these are the Franke lectures, at the humanities, at the
Whitney Humanity Center at Yale. I need to thank the Franke family who make possible the Franke lectures. That's Richard and Barbara Franke, and these lectures are intended to present important
topics in the humanities to a wide and general audience. I need to thank as I
always do Alice Kaplan for making this possible who stepped in to direct
the Whitney Humanity Center, right when the pandemic hit. And so there's a lot of plans, and lots of interesting
things are gonna happen as time moves on. I need to thank Sandra Malan-Bowles and Leana Hirschfeld Kroen for doing the organizational side, and Audrey Leak who's
the technical genius, and a brilliant undergraduate at Yale. Thank you very much, Audrey,
for running the show. Okay, this is the way it's gonna
work as it has in the past. We'll have the presentation
from our speaker, and then we'll take questions. I want to give room for the students in the seminar that I'm running on Marx's
"Capital, Volume One" time to ask questions, but
I think we'll ask everyone to put their questions in the chat after the presentation is over. So we don't lose track
of them, hang on to them, write them down, and I will open up the
floor when things end. I'm really excited to welcome our guest in
this way of welcoming where we're just having
faces hanging on screens. But I have been reading
a quote from a text, from our speakers as they come in. So I'm gonna start with a quote from our
speaker from an early book, and an important book
among many important books. Here's the quote. This is my translation, "Marx does not intend a moral
criticism of capitalism. It is not a question of justice or the violation of certain norms, but rather of the confirmation
of a state of affairs. That capitalist production damages elementary vital interests of workers. In order to establish this, no," quote, "right to an undamaged life," unquote, "needs to be postulated
or anything like it. Marx wants to show
scientifically, wissenschaftlich, that this violation of vital interests is inextricably bound up
with the capitalist system. And in so far as insight
into this characteristic of the capitalist system grows for the working class it will
also lead to political action. Not in the name of universal justice, but in its own interest, at least that is the
optimistic hope of Marx." This is a quote from a book that was originally published in 1991 by Michael Heinrich, our guest today the book is "Die Wissenschaft vom Wert" which is going into a, one of the multiple additions that
his books tend to go through. Michael Heinrich is a former collaborator of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe and was until 2016 professor of economics at the HTW in Berlin. His accomplishments on paper are many and his books are by now some of them in double digits of editions I hate to look at a long career writing in German only from the
English language perspective but to make this short for those listening, you can
read several titles in English. First of all "An Introduction to the Three
Volumes of Marx's Capital" the most reasonable, the most introductory and undistorted view, I
would say of the volumes as they need to go together. We can read in English the first volume of what I think is a projected three volume biography of Marx. Is that right? - [Michael] Four volumes. - Four volumes, sorry. And that is published in
English, the first volume "Karl Marx and the Birth
of the Modern Society" from 2019, a further commentary, how to read Marx's "Capital" which is an extensive
commentary on the beginning chapters is in the works in English will come out
from Monthly Review Press. And again, for those of
you who can read German, I wanna point you to this important leap in
the ballet of the debate over the theory of value,
"Die Wissenschaft vom Wert" from 1991, a really valuable
and important contribution. Thank you for coming Michael. Welcome, and I'll give
the floor over to you. - Yes, thank you very much
for invitation to speak here. And also thank you very
much for the introduction. I just have to add one point to the way you introduced me the book you mentioned
"Wissenschaft vom Wert" will also appear in
English finally next year. And it is my thickest book. The first edition from 91 was
considerably extended in 99. And of course the extended
version will appear in English. So now, also I have to
excuse my poor English. When I hear myself later I
see how many mistakes I make but I hope at least the
sense of the sentences will become clear. Also the English is a
little bit poor sometimes. I was invited here to talk about Marx value theory
and the original title of my talk was "Marx
Monetary Value Theory". I changed a little bit the
title, perhaps you saw it when I sent the table of contents, I added reading, "Reading
Marx Monetary Value Theory". I did this because at first
we really have to talk about, in which way do we talk about Marx value theory, very usual and widespread is a way of talking that maybe I
present my interpretation. It is opposed to some
alternative interpretations. I support my interpretation
with some quotes from Marx. My opponent supports his or her interpretation
with some other quotes. And when I found five quotes
in five of my interpretation and the opponent found only three quotes then it looks like that I am the winner of the game, like in a soccer game. But this is of course nonsense to treat the things like this. Of course, we have to
read cautiously, the texts but we cannot reduce reading of finding appropriate quotations. And in so far, I will start with the prerequisites of
discussing Marx value theory. I think there are two prerequisites. The first is a kind of
double historiography. And the other is that we really need a
critical reading instead of looking for a last version,
what these points mean, I will explain first and then I will come
to the critical issues of Marx value theory and the consequences of these issues for the
understanding of capitalism. So what I do, I mean this
double historiography by the way, I used historiography as translation for the German,
(speaks in foreign language). I hope it fits more or less. I think the must put in
a historiography as well our own point of view
as well Marx situation and his writing about his issues. So what means historiography of our own talking
about Marx value theory? When we talk about Marx our views are not only
influenced by our own positions. They are also influenced
by our historical situation in a very wide understanding, for example talking about Marx before
the Russian revolution and after was a big difference. Before the collapse of the Soviet union and
after is a big difference. So historical events play a role but also theoretical events play a role. Already in the social democracy in the very late 19th century started a talk about
dialectical materialism as philosophical basis,
historical materialism as the approach to history of Marxism. But we have to have in mind that all these terms didn't
appear in Marx writings he never used the term
dialectical materialism. He never used the term
historical materialism and about Marxism, he did this famous phrase,
"I am not a Marxist". And it was not a phrase only it expressed a distrust against ism. So Marx not at all wanted
to be the founder of an ism but nevertheless, such
categories are taken mostly for granted when we talk about Marx. And I cannot go deeper in this discussion. I just want to say behave very cautious in using such categories. When we now come to discussing value theory and additional historical difficulty emerges just a few years after Marx published "Capital volume One" in the year 1867, the so-called marginal
revolution started in economics. Carl Menger in Austria, Leon Walras in Switzerland and William Stanley Jevons in England published independently studies promoting the so-called
marginal utility theory. It was a new approach to bring utility into economic thinking. Adam Smiths denied that utility can explain value the marginalists with these marginal utility
renewed the approach. And it lasted only 20 years that this new approach became dominant and this had enormous
consequences for the perception and also for the discussion
of Marx value theory. The tradition of the marginalists they created a new view on
the possible value theories. On the one hand, it was said we have the so-called objective theories of value resting on
labor, production costs. On the other hand, we have the
subjective theories of value. They are built on consumer
preferences and utility. In this distinction, Marx and the classical political economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo are in one camp the differences
between them are minimized for many readers, no matter if Marxists or critics of
Marx, the original claim of Marx to deliver a fundamental critique of a classical political
economy disappeared. So it was only the question labor theory when we talk about value, do
we have a labor theory of value or do we have a utility theory of value? But I think this way of framing value theory
is totally misleading. Not only at Marx, already with Smiths. Smiths justified labor as a matter of value by
the subjective evaluation of the producer, where he said,
"Yes, labor is the real cost because it provokes misery to the producer and he will not have an
exchange of a labor product with something else which
he can get for less labor". So Adam Smiths in a subjective way gave reason to the so-called objective approach to value theory. So I think all these
distinctions, objective subjective labor theories, utility
theories have only a very, very limited use, but nevertheless they are used in a way as if
we can take them for granted. Last point I want to
mention what is important for our present perception of Marx or of, not of
Marx theory in general, but of "Capital". "Capital" as we know, three volumes. Unfortunately, most people
read only volume one, but the three volumes of capital form a unit, very important categories like profit and interest
appear only in volume three. When you don't know what
Marx means with profit you will automatically tend to confuse surplus value, category
of volume one, with profit and entrepreneurial gain,
categories of volume three. So we really need all
three volumes to read. But when we look to history volume one appeared in the year 1867. Volume three after Marx
death edited by his friend Frederick Engels appeared
nearly 30 years later in 1894. And while volume one was nicely finished by Marx was nicely presented by Marx, volume two and three
Engels had to construct out of unfinished manuscripts and to read it is much more difficult
than to read volume one. As a result, since 100
years, we have the situation that volume one dominates
the reception of "Capital". Volume one deals with the production process of
capital and many Marxists as well as Marx critics belief
here we find the real core of Marx analysis of
capitalism and what is said in volume two or three are some
details, additional details. We must not go too much in
depth occupying with them. And I think this is a
very wrong interpretation a very wrong accentuation of capital. So these were some very brief remarks about the historiography
of our own position that we have to be cautious
to take things for granted which are the result of a
certain historical process. We just shouldn't trust what is offered as a categories, things
we can take for granted. Now I come to my second point, the historiography of Marx analysis of value. In general, we have to put Marx theoretical texts, much more
in the conflict of his times than this is usually done. Most readers of "Capital", they want to learn something
about contemporary capitalism. It is said, "Yes, Marx is an important author. He has something to say,
read it," and they read it. But most readers are
not clear about the fact that all Marx texts also
"Capital" is an intervention in debates, in conflicts,
in struggles of his times. It is not a timeless
analytical effort to contribute to the wisdom of human mankind. And so we have to reconstruct all these contemporary, for Marx, contemporary struggles and debates in order to get a deeper
understanding of the writings. And you mentioned my Marx biography. This is one of the main
tasks of this biography. It is not to tell you
every detail of Marx life and what was his dinner on Sunday evening or something like that. No, I think we need the biography for really have the context of his writings, to
understand the conflicts to understand also Marx
standing in these conflicts which was changing, Marx
was all his lifetime an extremely learning
subject who had no problems to admit that something what he wrote or said
two years ago was wrong. That he had now a new insight which has to be taken into account. This, by the way, is also
a reason that why so many of Marx works including
capital were not finished because he was permanently learning. He did not just fulfill a program and sent the manuscript to the reader. So just for "Capital" I think I can say that it
was not finished in the 70s. It had of course, one of the reasons were that Marx was sick in the 70s, that also in the in the early 70s he was
politically very engaged, very active, but also in the 1870s he extended the plan for
"Capital" considerably. And I would say he could
extended it even so much that even when he lived 10 years more and would have the best health, he wouldn't be able to finish this extremely ambitious project. And also this, we have to
have in mind when we discuss about "Capital" that we have
not one finished project we have an evolving project. We have to see how things are developing. I will come back to this point in short. Now I just want to give you
a very, very rough idea. What were the struggles behind "Capital". Marx of course dealt with the
existing political economy, this political economy was one of the main justifying
sciences for capitalism. So it was not just a scientific debate. It was a debate about the science which has central
importance for capitalism. And in this times he, in "Capital", he made
the famous distinction between classical political
economy on the one hand which he accepted as a scientific approach a bourgeois approach but
nevertheless a scientific approach and vulgar economics, which
was not really scientific. It remained on the surface and in the course of
time, more and more this, what he called vulgar
economics became more and more apologetic. It was clear for the writers we have to defend capitalism and we have to present capitalism in a way that it is the best world ever. But there is a third branch not so Marx made it not so prominent but you can can see it in some footnotes in some remarks, this was especially the
German economists of his time. He considered German economists of his time, even worse
than the vulgar economists. Germany developed rather
late, economically. It was behind England and
France, in the first half of the 19th century. So there was not really an empirical basis for doing political economy. And the German economists took some, some fragments from Adam Smith, Ricardo say which they
not even really understood They mixed it up with some German historical consideration. And the result for Marx was
not at all a serious project. Another frontline for Marx were competing socialist
thinkers, for example Proudhon who he mentioned
several times in "Capital". They also made use of
classical political economy in a way which Marx criticized very much. So Marx had to fight against very different
camps in his "Capital". I will mention later what this means for certain points. But now I have to
mention in this paragraph just one point regarding the
publication of "Capital". I said the German economists were even worse
then the vulgar economists in England and France,
but in which language and where "Capital" was
published in Germany Marx in his letters said, "Oh, nobody really discusses 'Capital'". And he talked about a
conspiracy of silence. My idea is there was
not so much a conspiracy of silence against the book. There was the German
economists in the majority. They're really unable
to understand the book they were before unable
to understand really classical political economy. And so they didn't understand the critique of classical political economy. They also thought that it is
not necessary to criticize because the critic of the Germans was, "Oh, David Ricardo is too abstract. We cannot use such an abstract theory." And this was reason enough to say, "Oh, we must not occupy it". but now you can say,
okay, Marx book was not it didn't aim to the
academic debate in Germany. It was a book with socialist aims. It was written to support
the proletarian relation the proletarian revolution. A book for workers. But could the workers
really make use of "Capital" in this time, they were first
the selling price of the book. The first edition had a price which was around the weekly income
of a skilled worker. So far the for the most
workers in Germany, the book was not affordable. In the first edition, also Marx didn't. And also in, in later editions he didn't translate the
quotes from foreign languages. You could find five different languages in "Capital", ancient Greek, Latin, English, French, and Italian. He used a lot of terms
from ancient mythology, philosophy, world literature, and so on. So it was really a book for that educated, very
well educated reader. And these were in these
times, mainly the bourgeoisie. So it is not surprising that his book was not really a success in the first years after it was published. And when finally, 20 years after the first edition, an
English translation appeared then Marx opponent classical political economy already had vanished. Marginalists were ruling. So the book looked like a relic of an old
time, which has no meaning for the present times. So regarded under the
marketing aspects "Capital" during the first 20 years
was really a disaster. And also of course, this then
influenced the reception. Now I want to come to my next point before I then really come to the critical issues of value theory. I imagined that we mean that we need a critical
reading of Marx texts. There is not only in
reading Marx, but also in reading a lot of other
so-called classical authors a tendency to look for a last
version where the author said what he really want to say. In most cases, the search
for such an illusionary, for such a last version
is really illusionary. In Germany, this insight is rather old and it led to the
so-called critical editions not only to edit the last,
the so-called last version of a book, but to publish
all the versions of the book to publish also all the
changes in a single text. In Germany, we have fortunately the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe which it is not finished but which gives such a critical
edition, which then need which then makes possible
such a critical reading. What this critical reading had, the impact of this critical reading even for volume one, I to illustrate this, I
just give you one example. You can hear very often the opinion that the French translation of volume one is the last version because chronologically it appeared after the first two German editions. And it was really the last edition on which Marx was working. He checked the translation and changed a lot of points
and even Marx wrote, yes, "When you can read German, nevertheless," to the French readers he
said, "Even when you can read German, you should read
this French edition. It has a scientific value of its own". But this is not the full truths. The French edition brings
a lot of new insights, new material, for example, in
the section on accumulation but in the section on
value, it's a disaster. And this also was confirmed by Marx when Danielson the translator for the Russian edition
asked what is best to do. Marx told him use the second German edition compare with
the French edition, but not for the first chapters, here you have to take
only the German edition. What happened with these first chapters in the French translation was simply that Marx was not at all satisfied with the translation of
the French translator but he had not the time to
find better translations. So in many cases, he
just erased sentences, half sentences, half paragraphs. When my commentary to the first
few chapters was translated in France, there was a big problem that in this standard translation a lot of sentences I
commented they didn't exist in this book. In newer translations they added the sentences
as an appendix, but as you can imagine, most readers
didn't read the appendix. So the translation or this so-called last
version was really a problem for understanding "Capital". So now this was a long introduction but I think it a necessary introduction. I come to some critical
points of Marx value theory. Many Marxists, as many Marx
critics have a very simple view on value theory. When you ask them, what's
tells you value theory they say, "Okay, labor creates value. The magnitude of labor spent in production gives us
the magnitude of value." So it looks like that production
already determines value and its magnitude and
money is just an expression of value which exists also
without regarding money. All these propositions I just quoted in a briefly way are
very, very problematic. And this, I want to show
now in this third part about the critical points
of Marx value theory. First, we have to be clear about Marx way of presenting things. For example, when you read
the first two chapters of "Capital" many readers are puzzled in chapter one in value form analysis you find money in chapter two you again can find money. What's the difference? And many say, okay, even you
can read this in commentaries, "The presentation in chapter two is a more concrete presentation." This is nonsense. There is a very clear
division between chapter one and chapter two, chapter one
presents the form determination and chapter two presents human action ruled by this form determination probably most of you
remember this famous sentence from the preface that persons that Marx criticizes the actions of capitalists and land owners, but he is
not dealing with the character of these persons because
they don't play a role as persons but as personifications
of economic categories. Probably, you know, the sentence
you all know the sentence. Maybe you quoted it. You used it, but this sentence implies a very ambitious program. When I really want to present persons as personifications of economic categories I must present first, the
economic categories independently from the persons. This already is a scientific
program in total contrast to the program of
classical political economy as well, neo-classical political
economy, because both start with the individual and
the needs, the desire or the possibilities of the individual, and only from the action of the individual they derive economic institutions. Marx goes the opposite way in chapter one. His object is the exchange
relation of commodities. In chapter two, his object
is the exchange process of commodity owners, and they do this following their free
will, but this free will when they want to avoid
economic bankruptcy has to follow the form determinations
analyzed in chapter one. So, and this pattern also exists later in chapter four Marx analyzes
"Capital" and only this in a very short remark he comes to the capitalist
who makes the objective aim of capital to his or her subjective aim. So this we have to have
in mind, do we speak about form determinations
or do we speak about action? It makes a big difference for Marx. - Michael. Can I ask you a question?
- Of course. - At this point I would like to know your opinion on this choice of Marx
to do science in this way to start with the categories to imagine that persons
are personifications of categories, where does that come from? Or let me ask you this. What in "Capital" makes it right that you make this scientific choice? - Okay. These are two different
question where it comes from is more or less biographically a question where which,
where the learning processes of Marx to do this because in the 1840s it was not so clear this difference. I think it started in early 1850s in his notebooks where he
was working day after day in the British museum in London. To justify this program we just have to see if the analysis works. When we look, for example, in chapter two in "Capital" already Marx tries to explain on a rather general abstract level what commodity owners have to do. And there we can check is
this analysis convincing that what they have to do is exactly the form determination
analyzed in chapter one. We have to discuss this. And here I, this is just a in brackets set, the first
edition, the value form analysis of the first edition in this
respect is much more precise than in the second edition the first edition starts
with a different force value form not already
with the money form, but with a kind of crazy value form where every commodity is the general equivalent. But exactly this appears in chapter two, where Marx,
I think very clearly states what do the commodity owners desire? Every commodity owner has the desire that his or her commodity
is the general equivalent. So the crazy force value form of the first edition is exactly the desire of the commodity owners,
which is not realistic. And therefore they have to come to money. So the program I think is convincing of
Marx, but this doesn't mean that the way Marx presented
this program is correct or convincing in every detail,
there is some work to do. So now I want to come to the next critical point,
double character of labor. Everybody knows this really in an audience I would
ask, "Where is my mistake when I say a double character of labor?" Marx didn't speak of
double character of labor. His book about the double character of labor represented in commodities. Double character is not
a not historical feature of any labor. It is a feature of labor
represented in commodities. So it is a historical
feature only existing in a commodity producing society. Here again, we have a decisive critique against Adam Smith and
the classical school because they not only don't do this differentiation double character abstract and concrete labor,
they confuse concrete labor, what we have in every society with abstract labor, what
belongs to commodity production. And by this confusion, they
make commodity production to something which has to exist always. And the laws of commodity production of
capitalist commodity production for Adam Smith are the
loss of the economy. So, this is a very critical
distinction critic against the classical school, but
also it is very important for the later use in "Capital" when you come to the difference for example, between
constant and variable capital again, plays this double
character, a decisive role. But what I want to stress here in connecting this value theory is that how did we find abstract labor? We needed the exchange process,
in the exchange process there is an abstraction from use value. When we abstract from every use value, then
automatically the labor changes. It is not any more, a concrete labor. It is a kind of abstract labor. It is not an abstraction done consciously by someone, it is a practical
abstraction existing in everyday practice. But this means that abstract
labor is connected to exchange. When we only consider production we cannot talk about abstract labor and not talk about value. The same, by the way, is true regarding the magnitude of value. You all know the famous definition from the first five, six
pages of the first chapter that not the individually spent labor time forms the magnitude of value, but only socially
necessary labor time. But what is socially necessary labor time? It is labor time which in average, at a
certain situation is necessary but which labor enters this average not all the labor spent in production but only that labor whose
products enter the market. When you have a perfect factory which will not deliver
products to the market the labor conditions of this factory will not influence
socially necessary labor time. So also about the magnitude of value, we can only speak
regarding not only production but production and exchange. The third of these critical
points, value form. I already mentioned it shortly, value form in the first chapter from
simple value form to money form. Very often, it is misunderstood as a kind of abbreviated
historical development of money. But when you read cautiously already the introductionary part of
this sub chapter on value form then you can see Marx is
not speaking about money. He is speaking about the money form, the
necessity of the money form. The necessity of a form
is not a historical event. And the necessity of a form relates to
the system of categories with which I describe
an existing totality. Is it necessary to have this form in order to describe,
to analyze this totality or is it not? The background of this
seemingly abstract reasoning is very political. When Marx started with
"Grundrisse", he was occupied with a pupil of Proudhon, a
French author named D'Adamo and there he discussed, D'Adamo
discussed Proudhon thesis, what is socialism, and Marx
went into this discussion. Proudhon's basic idea
was to introduce a kind of commodity production without money. And this gave reason to Marx to think about the connection
between commodity and money. Is it only a superficial
connection so that you can get rid of money, or is it much deeper? His first result, Marx
first result presented in 1859 in a contribution to the critique of political economy
was a kind of confusion. He confounded analysis of value form with analysis of the exchange process. He himself discovered these shortcomings in early sixties when he works
on theories of surplus value and he occupied with Samuel Bailey, and English economists
in early 19th century. Bailey criticized Ricardian
theories of value. Bailey said, "Value always is
only a relational category," in the sense of relative value. And the Ricardians try to
transform a relational thing in an absolute thing,
which is not existing. And now Marx wanted on the
one hand to criticize Bailey. But on the other hand, he also saw that the Ricardians were
unable to criticize Bailey. So this showed that there
was a massive mistake, massive shortcoming in the
classical Ricardian theory. And by this he learned that also he
himself did a certain confusion in the book of 59. And this gave then reason for
the first full presentation of value form analyzes in the
first edition of "Capital". But because this first presentation of value form analysis was so difficult to read, Marx was criticized by Engels and by his
friend, Louis Cooperman. And it was said, nobody will understand. Marx then produced a much simpler version as an appendix to the first edition. And what we now read in the standard editions of
"Capital" is much more close to the popularized appendix than to the strict
presentation of first edition. So I just mentioned this that you see you have on the
one hand, a certain progress in March Marx analysis but sometimes you have also a kind of regress of introducing
some popularization which makes the things less clear. And also this is an argument in value form analysis very clearly there is not one best
version of value analysis, of value form analysis. When you really want to work on it, you need all
the different versions. Now, my next point is fateishism. Also here, we have an
evolution in Marx thinking it evolved rather lately. I don't give you the the history of this because
I always look to the clock and the time is running, in first edition finally, the, it is
treated more extensively but only in the second
edition fateish character of the commodity is put
together to one section. It is a rather long section,
but we can say nearly until the second half of 20th
century, it was mainly ignored in discussion from Marxists
as well from Marx critics. The interest started mainly in the second half of 20th century but then very often
fateishism was read as a kind of wrong consciousness, there
is a deceiving of people. They believe that value
is an objective property of things, but it is not. But this is really a misunderstanding of the theory of fateishism. Marx stresses that fateishism is a reality commodities
have this feature. And why do they have this? Not as a result of a belief. No, they have this feature
because of a certain practice because of the way the
producers relate to each others. They relate not directly to each other. They relate mediated
through their products. And in so far, this Marx
stresses in "Capital", in the section, on fateishism,
the social properties of the producers and their
labor become social properties of their products. This is a necessity in
commodity production. The decisive, very short, but decisive explanation in "Capital" in penguin edition, you can
find in the pages 165, 66 I just want to read one sentence. Now I quote, "The labor of the private individual manifests itself as
an element of the total labor of society, only through
the relations, which the act of exchange established
between the products and through the mediation
between the producers. To the producers, therefore,
the social relations between their private labors appear as what they are." This, "As what they
are," is very important. It says it is not wrong consciousness. "They appear as what they are. They do not appear as direct social relations
between persons in their work but rather as material
relations between persons and social relations between things." So I quoted this also
before it becomes clear that value theory for Marx
is not just the theory which explains us the exchange relations of different commodities, value theory in Marx is a social theory. It should explain how
in this rather perverse and I mean this literally,
in this perverse economy economy is possible, why it's perverse? You have, on the one hand
as social division of labor each producer is dependent
on a lot of other producers. There is a very strict social connection but the production is organized as if all producers were
Robinson's on a remote Ireland. They behave, the producers
behave atomistic. They do their decisions independently from all the other producers
and how this craziness that you have a connection, a
necessary material connection by all with the division of labor. And nevertheless you'll behave as if the others wouldn't exist. How this can work this special functioning of an economy should value theory explain in so far, it is a social theory. And in this social theory exchange plays a crucial role. There are a lot of opinions
who present Marx value theory determined by production already. These production oriented approaches miss the special character of value theory as a social theory, they also
miss the special character of a capitalist economy. So the question depends value
only on production, or depends on production and exchange is not a small theoretical question where you can write your PhD thesis about, but without much political impact. It, I think it is a very decisive question how to analyze, how to
understand capitalism. And here at this point I come to the next, very
related of the critical issues. It is money. When production already determines value then money is just the
expression of something what already exists before. Not very important. In Marx, it's rather different. In chapter three of "Capital" where Marx discusses the
functions of money he discussed as the first function measure of value. Marx there mentions that abstract labor is the
inner measure of value. Already in the first pages of "Capital" Marx stressed that value is across a crystal of abstract labor but now Marx introduces
money as measure of value. And not just as another
additional measure. No, he introduces money as the
only real measure of value. Why? Why he's doing this? Because abstract labor, as I try to explain before, you cannot find trust in the production when you measure labor with a clock you always measure the concrete individual labor of a certain worker. Abstract labor you can only find in exchange, but in exchange the commodities are
exchanged against money. At least when we have it to do with an developed exchange in
capitalist production. So money is the only
real measure of value. Abstract labor is, and
a strong analytical tool but you cannot use it for a real measure. Money as a measure of value
has its own properties. It can measure value correctly and it can measure value
in a not correct way, price and value can differ and even more, money can give a price to something which has no value. Marx stress this in chapter three. So when we now take these
critical issues together I think we can really speak of monetary value theory in Marx. It is not a production
oriented value theory. It is a monetary value theory where we however, have
also to regard that money in this theory is not just a simple thing as it is very often regarded. I just remind you the
steps of analysis of money at the beginning of "Capital"
in chapter one necessity of the money form. Chapter two, commodity owners act as character masks of
personifications and forced to sought out real money, a commodity as real money. And chapter three, the money functions, not
as an arbitrary enumeration but derived from commodity circulation. And this is not the last step in the theory of money. In volume three regarding credit we will find credit money and
fictitious capital and so on. So money itself is a complicated
thing which plays a role or which is developed for
all volumes of capital. So I said, taking all
these critical issues I try to present you briefly together we can say Marx value
theory is a monetary theory which needs production
and exchange production and circulation to explain something. And this story of value theory continues. It's not at the end, in the third chapter it continues with capital,
not the book "Capital" the thing and the category capital. Also here, we can say Marx presents a monetary capital theory. Already in chapter four,
when Marx analyzes the circulation figure MCM dash
money commodity more money. He starts the discussing
the formed determination of capital with money, and he stresses that capital needs money as
an independent expression of capital only in the using capital you can also do all the
accountings later with profit rate as a measure for valorization and so on. Production and exploitation come into the game already in a chapter five and six, they shall
explain why valorization which we found in the formed
analysis, is possible. It rests on exploitation,
but you cannot reduce capital just on exploitation. Exploitation you have
in every class society in a society or in an
economy based on slave work or in a society like in medieval times on unfree work and so on everywhere
you have exploitation. But to understand the specific capitalists structure of
exploitation, you need money and Marx himself stresses this in at the end of the fifth chapter. Let me just read one short quote which you can find in penguin
edition on the page 268 where first Marx describe
the contradiction in attempts to explain capital. So Marx concluded now the quote, "Capital cannot therefore
arise from circulation and it is equally impossible for it to arise apart from circulation. It must have its origin both in circulation and
not in circulation." So also capital is not
something which you can reduce to production like value. You need production and circulation. And now when you look on the
structure of the three volumes of "Capital", volume one
focuses on production after the first five chapters,
and many people think, "Oh, this is the core of
Marx analysis of capitalism." No, the whole is the core. You need the second volume on circulation, and you
need the third volume of the process as a whole, where profit and interest is introduced
such important categories. And from these two further volumes the second and the third volume you also can learn that
you cannot make a division which is very popular between a so-called real capital and a speculative financial area as if this
were two different worlds. No, the same way as you cannot have a pure value sphere apart
from any money relations you can have a pure capitalist real production sphere apart
from any speculation, money market, credit, interest
fearing capital and so on. This is very important for understanding contemporary capitalism. And of course it is very important when we want to fight against capitalism. When we want to overcome capitalism we must really understand
capitalism as a whole. However, my time is at the end I had to speak here about value theory. So understanding capitalism as a whole is another story I will
finish here at this point. And thank you very much for your patience and for your attention. Thank you very much. - Thank you Michael. This is the place where there
would be thunderous applause. I like to mark the place, what
we're missing in this world. So imagine it's there. I should, you know they make us into these TV,
these unwilling TV celebrities. We should at least have an applause track I'm gonna ask for that next
time, maybe not a laugh track. And so thank you very much. I want to ask people to put questions in the chat, which they're already doing. I wanna start out with one question to you if you don't mind, it's going
back to the relationship between money and socially
necessary, average labor time. If you don't mind. I just want to hear a little
bit more about this from you. I've read a lot about it from you, but I think
it's good for people to hear. I'm thinking of the first
page of chapter three where he says at the end,
I'm gonna read the penguin which we are working with my colleague Paul Reitter to update in a new translation but they say in the penguin,
"Money as a measure of value as the necessary form of
appearance of the measure of value which is imminent of the
commodities, namely labor time." So I can understand you saying that, bringing money
back into the equation, let's say, and changing the
revolutionary possibilities of the book by doing that. - Okay, the last remark is a
little bit too pathetic to say, "Oh, now I changed everything". - Well you don't change everything. But you add, I mean, it isn't that well that's a long discussion
anyway, that's my hope But still he has to call
it a form of appearance. So I wanna know if you could say more than what role does the immanent form have socially
necessary labor time in the value form. Money measures it practically. I know that I'm gonna
measure value in money. We know this, what you don't
know, what's being shown by Marx is that you're
actually measuring it in in socially necessary labor time which is a huge innovation, it seems to me, over the
classical political economists and over the, let's say a kind of empirical view of
the economy, which says that money is the money
is the root of everything. It's really about money. Here it's about how people's efforts, social efforts to make something are valued when they're put together with other social efforts to make things in the exchange realm. So I agree completely that it's between production and
exchange, that value arises but what role does this
imminent form play? And why should the form of appearance be given
such pride of place? - This eminent form, this eminent measure of value plays the crucial
role in understanding value. Value is a certain kind of
objectivity, now we came to the translation problems in German. I would say, (speaks in foreign language). A certain time of, (speaks
in foreign language), thing like ness. When I allow to construct an English word a certain kind of objectivity which on the one hand has features of physical objectivity of
analog to in an analog way to physical objectivity,
but it is not physical. And this special kind of objectivity I think is one of the
main discoveries of Marx. When you look to the
history of political economy there is a certain dispute
is economy a science, a natural science with physical quantities? Or is it a kind of psychology because it deals with consumer
preferences and so on. And the discussions are
sometimes very stupid when you read this. Marx, I think exactly in his
value theory can show value is neither the one nor the
other, neither it has to do with physical quantities. It is not like a natural science but it is also not a kind of psychology. And to understand this special objectivity you need the term abstract labor the difference concrete
and abstract labor. So it is a necessary
step in the appropriation of our object of research
in the introduction of 1857 Marx made this
nice remark relating to Hagle that we must appropriate in our thoughts, the objective thing we do research and this we
can do only with categories. And so abstract labor is one of the decisive categories
for this appropriation but it is not at all a
category you can measure. You can, you can say 10
hours abstract labor. This term makes absolutely no sense. Here you need money. And when you talk about, or Marx talks about a shyness form, a form of appearance, we also
have to be very cautious. Many people know this term maybe coming from a Galilean philosophy there is an essence, and
there is a form of appearance. And many people think, ah
essence is the essence. The important part and form of appearance is
something hanging around not so important, but
this is totally wrong already with Hagle form of appearance is
absolutely necessary. And in Hagle not to put apart from essence and
now read "Capital" volume one. Where do you find the term essence? Not in the first few
chapters, you have form of appearance, but without essence. So this means also form of appearance is something
different from what Hagle means. And also what many contemporary Marxists understand this form of appearance, but for our
discussion, it is important. It is not any subordinated. So I hope I could give some
ideas to your question. - Many, many ideas. I thank you for it. We have a lot of questions in the chat. So what I'm going to do, let's see how many do
we have, maybe about 10. I think we'll just do
it the way we usually do which is we'll start with the first one. - Yeah, hi thanks Michael,
for this interesting talk I just had a quick
question about your claim that Marx begins the "Capital" volume one with form determination
instead of human action. But I'm very interested
myself in those opening pages and the way that Marx
says that a use value to a consumer is a necessary
condition for a commodity. Otherwise, an object won't be exchanged and it can't have exchange value at all. And so it can't even be a commodity. So with that in mind, can't we say that commodities always begin with human action and
therefore Marx account of commodities, even though
he's obviously concerned with form determination also
begins with human action? - Okay, why don't we take one more? Does that sound right? Thank you Tristan. Let's open up Michael Pulsford. Michael, you'll be next. Or if we don't get to Michael
or if Michael has left I can read the question. That's fine. - Not think that they are still on. - Well let's ask the question anyway, for the sake of fairness. I'll go ahead and do it. This is from Michael. "Did Marx say anything
about marginal theories of value and what do you think
he might've said about value if he was writing a critique of political economy, a few decades later and marginal theories
of value were dominant?" This is a great question. I would have asked it myself. So Michael, if you're
listening, thank you. Okay Michael, I think you're on. - Okay, shall I answer? Okay. Interesting questions maybe we will have a long evening. I will start with the
second question of Tristan. You mentioned that Marx
in the first sub section of the first chapter already stressed every commodity needs use value otherwise it cannot be a commodity. And if this not means that he
also starts with human action then I understood correctly. I think Marx mentioned,
it is totally correct what you said about Marx, he mentioned this as a kind
of general prerequisite. It must have use value and it must have use value for others. Not only for me then
it's also not a commodity but this general prerequisite doesn't constitute a certain approach
on which he's building. He also could say when we have commodity
production and exchange it is done by humans. Humans have to breathe, without breathing there is no commodity
production, but does this mean that Marx would have
presented a biologist approach when just stating people
always have to breathe it would only give a very, very general prerequisite. And in such way, I would
interpret the, what you mentioned. Marx says okay, it must have use value, but now let's analyze the economic forms. And the action comes then
in the second chapter which already starts
with this nice sentence the commodities cannot
go alone to the market. Therefore we have to
look for their owners. So also here Marx makes clear now we change perspective. Now first we really come to
the persons and the actions. The third question about marginal theory is this is really an interesting point. There were some very rough predecessors in British economy who
also tried not make use of marginal theory, but of utility theory Marx knew them and counted
them as vulgar economics. But I found no hint that he ever saw the book of Jevons. The book of Jevons was published in London in the year 1871 or 72. A time by Marx was in London where he followed economic discussions neither in a letter, neither in a draft, in a notebook, nowhere
this book or another book of marginalist literature is mentioned. So far, and I would expect to
find at least a short remark what nonsense nowadays
produced or something, but no, nothing. Another book of Jevons. He knew about the coal production the coal industry, a book,
which appeared earlier. So he also knew the
name, but not this book. And in so far I think he missed the rise
of this marginalist theory. He was in 70, 71, he was very occupied with the civil war in France
to write civil war in France with the Paris comun. Then he was sick. Then he was trying to finish
volume two of "Capital". And this marginalism, he
missed this marginalism. And when he couldn't miss
it, because it was so broad in the 80s, he was dead. So he didn't see it. And you asked also what would be his estimation, difficult question. I would say, I would suppose his answer to it would have two
paths, stressing utility. He would criticize very heavily. To introduce mathematical formalism in, especially the differential calculus he would appreciate. He himself did intensive
study of differential calculus since mid of the 60s there are mathematical
notebooks, only one is published until now, but there are
more mathematical notebooks which will be published in mega. And from this, you'll see
that he really was engaged occupying knowledge, not
he was not a researcher a mathematical researcher, but
he was a person who tried to learn all this calculus. So now the first question,
which has several parts and which not, I think not all parts are so narrow to my talk. One part is you mentioned pessimists Adornian outlook, or Adornian theories. And I think I also
mentioned this in Brighton. Some people, some pupils of Adorno understand
fateishism as a closed system you cannot, you cannot
escape from fateishism. It is everywhere. If this would be true then the question is, how
can we talk about fateishism? When we are such imprisoned by fateishism how can we analyze it? So this totally closed world
by fateishism cannot exist. Otherwise we couldn't talk about and I would say fateishism is an always present background
for workers, for capitalists, for academics non academics, and we cannot escape this background but how we react to this background what this background is doing with us has to do with our practice,
our practical life as well with our knowledge with
our intellectual life what we do learn. And here I would say at least with these
extreme Adornian pupils I have big differences. You also mentioned pessimistic outlooks. This is true in Adorno. And in, especially I think even more in Horkheimer you
can find such a pessimism. Also this, I wouldn't
share, Adorno and Horkheimer they had the experience of fascism. They had the experience
of nearly break down of human society by fascism
and by the second world war. And they had reason to be pessimistic but in analytical terms I think there is not such a good reason. And when Adorno and
Horkheimer saw the hints that they, they have not to be so pessimistic when the
students movement emerged they had big problems with
the student movements. I think also because they were in a pessimistic way prejudiced. Nowadays, I think we also have reason to some pessimism because a
totally different situation. Capitalism is destroying so much the planet that perhaps the capitalism will have destroyed the planet and our foundations of living before we can
succeed to destroy capitalism. It is a competition in time. And I must say I'm not sure if we will
win this competition. So this could be a pessimist, also a kind of pessimism, but this
could be totally different from Adornian or Horkheimer pessimism but also in this case,
I still have some hope. - Okay, thank you. We're going to do a few more questions. We'll start with my
colleague, Paul Reitter, Paul? - Michael, thank you so much for your talk and for being here. I can't remember whether or not Paul
said this, but you know Michael is in Berlin right now. So it's 1:30 in the morning and you know, the energy and lucidity at this advanced hour
really are quite stunning. So I admire that and much
else about this presentation. I want to ask a question
that I've asked before. And so I forgive people in the
audience who are maybe tired of this question by now, but
this time is a little different because, whereas I don't
think the question has gotten that much traction with
previous presenters, you actually have spoken to this issue a bit and seem
interested in taking it up. And the issue is what it is on the level of, on the level of rhetoric. How is it that this text lends itself
to misreadings and you talked about the popularizing
formulations in the section on value that you think
are a bit misleading. And I would be really interested to hear some examples of that. - Of the misreadings? - Or of the popularizing formulations in the 1872 edition that lend themselves to misreadings misinterpretation. - [Michael] Okay. - Michael I'll read one that from the chat, just to add to your list, this is
from Anne Lee Summers. She asked me to ask the question, "Could professor Heinrich
comment on the usefulness of studying book four of
"Capital" namely theories of surplus value in the
context of a critical reading of 'Capital' volumes, one, two, and three you seem to emphasize those three but not so much the
supposed or potential four. Also, could you comment on
the accuracy or usefulness of Alan Oakley's 1983
bibliographic analysis of Marx's critical theory?" So that's two questions
from Anne Lee Summers. And shall we give you one more? - Alan Oakley's what I,
I didn't understand that- - 1983 bibliographic analysis
of Marx's critical theory. I don't know that myself, but. - Yeah I know the name of Alan Oakley,
but this book, I don't know. I have nothing to say. - Okay. Now-
- I will say later. - Okay, shall we have one-
- Do another one. - Okay, so Audrey, could
you open Allen Sbanotto? - [Allen] Hi, can hear me? - Yes, we hear you fine. - [Allen] All right. I hope this isn't too narrow or technical but I just wanted to ask,
you had mentioned the value of a commodity can differ from its price. And that makes sense. There's all kinds of
reasons why that can happen but can the sum of all values of commodities be different from the sum of all prices? - Okay, thank you. You know, this is a beautiful opportunity where you can ask both
questions about the end of the world and incredibly
technical questions. And professor Heinrich
handles them both with grace. Do you want to start with these or do you want to
ask, do you want some more? - Maybe one more question. - Great, so. Okay, this is a little bit, little bit off topic,
but let's do it anyway. Could you Audrey open Jack Copely? Jack, are you there? Reminds me of all the hours. I spent listening to
talk radio in my life. They have someone who makes
sure the person is there. I can read Jack's question if
he's not on the list anymore. What do you think Audrey? - Someone in the chat said
that his mic does not work. - Okay so then I'll read the question. Sorry. He says, "Wonderful
talk, before capitalism there existed in certain places and times money, wage labor, market exchange, private property, et cetera. Can we say that abstract labor and the law of value
existed in incipient form on the margins of such
pre capitalist societies?" Oh, he says his microphone doesn't work. I'm so sorry. I see it now. Okay, Michael I'll let
you go for those four. - Yeah, I will start
with the last question. It is a very important question. We are very used to say money, commodities, even capital or
private property exists long, long ago before capitalism. This is not completely true. We have to consider that all
this, property, money, capital in pre capitalist societies is different. You have the capitalist
property in nowadays. What, what is common to us is defined by the
exclusion of others. When you want to define what is property, private property, I can exclude
anybody else from the use. This is my ground. I don't allow you to use it. Then it is my property. This is a rather new constellation in all pre capitalist societies you had something you
can call private property but with social obligations, the exclusion of the others was not the
common feature of property. Also with money. When you see some coins,
you think, oh, that's money. But also this is not true. You have, on the one hand the use of this coin followed
in parts, different rules according to the situation, it is money, nowadays is abstract wealth. But the so-called money in pre capitalist times
was something bound in certain social relations. Even what we nowadays call
functions of money were in some societies distributed
to different bearers a mean of circulation, means
of circulation was different from measure of value or
from a storage of value. So you cannot just say, "Oh,
this exists all the time". And in so far I would also say there was not
a double character of labor like the analysis with
capitalist commodity. And of course not in the
same way, abstract labor. And this point is even discussed very briefly in "Capital"
in the first chapter when Marx made this excursus on Aristotle. Why Aristotle couldn't
come to value theory. He was restricted by the
structures of his society. And one could add this, he was not that something
existed and he couldn't see, no, it didn't exist in the
way it exists nowadays. And this is also important when we, now, especially with the Marxist approach analyze pre capitalist societies we must be extremely cautious not just to project our categories on the pre capitalist society. Then our analysis will go very wrong. So now the second. Ah, no, no, no, no, the third I can do it
really the opposite order. The third question value
differs from price. And you asked can also the sum of value differ from the sum of prices. I don't know how you mean this question. There is the so-called
transformation problem. It is between value
theory, as it is presented in volume one in volume
three, we have a theory of production prices
and Marx tries to show that production prices
still ruled by values. He even offers a way of accounting, how we can
account starting with values, the production prices and
the average rate of profit but this accounting is
wrong, what he presents and the ironic point is that he knew this. He mentioned this that this is wrong, but he
said it doesn't play a role because he didn't want to go in details. Later on, it came out, it played a much bigger role
than Marx expected this. I don't know if you have this in mind,
when you have this in mind I must say, now is the time to show, to come to the transformation problem then I first would have to
explain what this means. I wrote about this in "Signs
of Value", for example. So I must put the answer to the book. When you just stay on the level of volume one where I said,
yes, money expresses value and it can express more or less value. Then it is for sure that
there is no necessary equation that the sum of all prices is equal
to the sum of all values. It can be more, it can be less. So second question about book four. Here, first, we have to
distinguish, you identify it. Book four, with theories of surplus value. This is wrong. This is definitely wrong. Book for of "Capital". The history of theories was never written. There is not even a draft, theories of surplus value as the name already
indicates is just the history of one category of surplus value. But book four should be the
history of economic theory what is a different thing. Furthermore, the history of theory Marx wanted to write when
he had all his categories. So presupposing the
three theoretical books and the categories. He wanted to write the
history of the theory. When Marx wrote theories of surplus value, he didn't
have all the categories. It emerged in the big manuscript written between 1861 to 63 where he was in the middle
of his research process. And this research process continued also after finishing theories of surplus value. The research process continued on the one hand regarding
the theoretical categories but it also continued on the field of the history of economic theories. In the year, at the end of the year, 1863
Marx produced a new notebook. The so-called "Bi Haftar"
accompanying notebooks. A to G, they were numbered
by letters from A to G, in this "Bi Haftar", they
are not published until now. They will come in in mega of course, but in this "Bi Haftar",
he widened his view on economic theory enormously. So, "Theories of Surplus Value",
luck in several dimensions something what would make them even to a draft for book four,
it is only one category. The system of categories
of the theory is not ready. And the research in the history of theory went on after
"Theories of Surplus Value". So "Theories of Surplus Value" is not the number four, that the book is missing, that this fourth book is
missing is really, really a blow because in "Capital" Marx always relates in footnotes, in small
remarks to Smith's and Ricardo but we have nowhere, a big
presentation about Smiths and Ricardo and such an
representation would be necessary especially when you have in mind what I said at the beginning that after "Capital" appeared,
the marginalists came and they rewrote the history
with these new distinctions. If Marx would have clearly
defined his relation to the classics more than in
the footnotes of "Capital" it would be much more easy
to say clearly the framework what the marginalist offer for the history of theory is absolutely
not fitting for Marx. So that we miss book four has not only a scientific relevance it also has a political relevance dealing with competing theories. So, and now I, yeah, Paul Reitter is left. Misreadings popular versions,
in the secondary edition you have mainly as value form analysis a reworking of the appendix of the first volume, which
was already popularized which also, I must say
has one big progress, the three peculiarities of the equivalent form appear for the first time in the appendix. This is really a progress compared with the version of the first
chapter, first edition, but that the force value form
of the first edition is missed or is replaced in the second edition. This is a big problem I think. This is a lack what we have and there are also some historising insertions that in value form analysis Marx starts with historical examples. They only shall illustrate value form or the different value forms, but this of course supports this
historical reading of value form. In the first edition,
you didn't have this, then you have popularized remarks also in other parts of the book but they came not so much
from the second edition. They come from the fourth edition, the fourth edition of volume one. Not prepared by Marx, but by Engels. And what did Engels do in this edition? He took the second edition,
the second German edition and looked what are the
differences in the French edition and also he had a small list of Marx of changes he wants to do for a third German edition or
for an English translation. And Engels try to combine this. Sometimes he did this very successfully. Sometimes he did this not so successfully. And the strictness in which Marx dealt with the category was
a little bit blurred. In one case, there is even
a translation mistake. Engels had to translate
from the French edition to the German when he
wanted to insert something because there was not a German original of the French edition. And there is one small mistake. Okay, the sense delivers nonsense in the section on accumulation. And it seems that nobody realized that literally speaking
the the sense is nonsense but these were very small points. The more decisive point is
the overwhelming presence of book one the overwhelming presence
of the production process which structured the
perception of "Capital". So I wouldn't say there
are so much misreadings or so much phrases in the second edition which
giving cause to misreadings. I would more stress this special reception putting production
process in the center. This caused a big misreading. - Okay, thank you. It is about our closing time now. There's been, there are some
more questions in the chat and there's been some requests
that one question get aired. And so I'm gonna air that question as the last question with
apologies to everyone else. That is a question from Lucas Guesser and I'm just gonna read
it for the sake of time. "There's been a lot of debate recently in Brazilian economics about the so-called
modern monetary theory. Do you think it is compatible with Marx's analysis of capitalism?" Make this the last question
with great apologies to all the people with also
great questions in the chat. Michael? - Yeah, this is a good question but I would say we have to put this in a little bit in a broader range. Modern monetary theory, now the time is too short to say something what it is for the people
who don't know the term it comes from some rather radical pupils of Keynes from Keynesian school. And there is the broader question Keynesian theory and Marx on
critical political economy. Do they fit together or not? And here, I think we have
this question is prior and here we have to deal
with Keynes in a similar way. We have to deal with Marx. With Marx I stress we cannot take everything for granted what the different Marxist traditions tell us about Marx. We have to see which
categories really fit to Marx. The same is true for Keynesian economics. Keynes was very often reduced to a deficit spending policy. And in some respect this modern monetary
theory is a radicalization of this approach that we don't have to fear
deficits that deficits are good for the development of the economy. Keynes has to offer a much
more elaborated analysis but like Marx also in manuscripts not published
during his lifetime. During his lifetime was in the year 1931, the treaties on money
where he was half with one leg fixed in neoclassical theory and only with one leg beyond. And then in 1936, the general theory where he
tried to formulate a difference, a basic difference to
neo-classical mainstream but general theory, the published version was already a popularized,
moderated version of manuscripts which
emerged between 31 and 36. There he developed a theory, a monetary theory of production. And this monetary theory of
production, I think has points you can connect it very easily with Marx. So there is the possibility
to connect something but not on a superficial sphere. And with modern monetary theory I would say they have some good points criticizing the mainstream but what they have to offer as a theory until now
is not really a theory. It is some ideas about money and the state and the state
debt which is rather premature. So it is good that this approach exists. It inspired a lot the discussion but I think it is not something you can just easily integrate
in the Marxian framework. But to repeat this, the radical side of Keynes' writings, which were not published in his lifetime, the manuscript were found after his widow died in the 70s and only then
they were published. These manuscripts are very interesting for when you occupy this
critic of political economy in my "Science of value", which finally will appear next year I make some remarks to these manuscripts. For the moment I will stop at this point. - Thank you very much. Again, this is where the
applause track would be. We will be waiting for the English version
of "The Science of Value". We appreciate very much your fortitude and your willingness
to answer all questions your movement from the
technical to the revolutionary to the historical, and really
is, it's a singular thing. So I appreciate it very much. Thank you for coming.
