Whereas most previous and later discussions of Marx’s transformation of values into prices of production have focused on his mathematical procedure, Henryk Grossman addressed the logic of its place in the structure of Capital. On this basis he criticised underconsumptionist and disproportionality theorists of economic crises for inappropriately basing their accounts on the level of analysis of the value schemas in the second volume of Capital. Such a criticism cannot be made of Grossman’s and Marx’s explanation of systemic crises in terms of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Grossman’s article still provides insights into Marx’s analysis of capitalism and his theory of economic crises, unsurpassed in the subsequent literature.
MoseleyFredCampbellMarthaReutenGeert‘Hostile Brothers: Marx’s Theory of the Distribution of Surplus-value in Volume iii of Capital’The Culmination of Capital: Essays on Volume iii of Marx’s Capital2002BasingstokePalgrave Macmillan
MoseleyFred‘Critique of Heinrich: Marx Did Not Abandon the Logical Structure’Monthly Review2013accessed 21 October 20141 December, available at: <http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/critique-heinrich-marx-abandon-logical-structure/>
VaroufakisYanis‘Confessions of an Erratic Marxist in the Midst of a Repugnant European Crisis’Yanis Varoufakis: Thoughts for the Post-2008 World2013accessed 22 March 2015available at: <http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2013/12/10/confessions-of-an-erratic-marxist-in-the-midst-of-a-repugnant-european-crisis>
Grossman2000, p. 171; Grossman 1924; Grossmann 1928, pp. 183–4; but especially Grossmann 1992, n.b. pp. 29–31 and Grossman 2013.
Marx1981, pp. 278–9.
Marx1981, pp. 296–8.
Luxemburg1913, p. 311, uses the term ‘objective form’. Luxemburg’s assumption that the objective form and quantity of commodities constrain the movement of surplus value between departments of production can be identified with the broader, mistaken framework which Kliman calls ‘physicalism’ (Kliman 2007, pp. 13, 35); also see Moseley 1993.
See Carchedi2011, pp. 53–130; Freeman 2010; Kliman 2007; and Moseley 1993.
Gurland1930, pp. 79–80.
Neisser1931, pp. 73–4.
His footnote references Grossmann1929, pp. 107, 211. In the abridged English translation (Grossmann 1992) the first passage Grossman referred to is missing, while the second has been condensed. For Grossman’s responses to other criticisms of his account of Marx’s crisis theory see Grossman 2014, pp. 76–85.