Marx’s Abstract Theory of Value and Money in Volume 1 of Capital

Paul North opens the Franke lectures in Humanities, acknowledging the series on Marx's Capital and introducing co-organizer Paul Reitter. He highlights the undergraduate seminar's in-depth study of Volume I and the support from Richard and Barbara Franke. North also thanks the Whitney Humanities Center's director, Alice Kaplan, and the organizing team, and introduces the format of the lecture series, including Q&A with the audience.

Paul North introduces Fred Moseley, an emeritus economics professor at Mount Holyoke College, who has extensively published on Marxian theory. Moseley's work includes 'Money and Totality' and his involvement with the translation of Marx's 1864-65 economic manuscripts. North outlines the lecture's structure: a presentation by Moseley, a response by Michael Heinrich, and a Q&A session.

Fred Moseley discusses his paper's shift from an overview of Volume I to a focus on Chapter One, influenced by Michael Heinrich's seminar presentation. Moseley appreciates Heinrich's contributions to Marxian scholarship, particularly regarding the MEGA (Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe) project. The chapter's complexity and controversy are highlighted, with Moseley noting Marx's own acknowledgment of the difficulty in understanding the chapter.

Moseley outlines the logical structure of Chapter One, emphasizing the three main aspects of Marx's concept of value: substance, magnitude, and form of appearance. He explains that the substance of value is determined by abstract labor, the magnitude by the quantity of socially necessary labor time, and the form of appearance as money and prices. Moseley also previews four controversial issues within the chapter.

Fred Moseley delves into the derivation of abstract labor as the substance of value, discussing the common property of commodities that determines their exchange values. He addresses the magnitude of value, defined as the quantity of abstract labor or socially necessary labor time. Moseley also raises the question of whether the magnitude of value is a property of individual commodities or multiple commodities together.

Moseley discusses the controversy over whether the magnitude of value is determined solely in the production process or if it also depends on circulation and market demand. He presents his view that the magnitude of value is determined by production, referencing Marx's writings on the subject and the implications for understanding surplus value and exploitation within capitalism.

Fred Moseley and Michael Heinrich engage in a discussion about the interpretation of Marx's theory, particularly regarding the determination of value. While acknowledging areas of disagreement, they also explore the possibility of mutual compatibility in their views, especially concerning the role of supply and demand in the determination of socially necessary labor time.

Michael Heinrich argues that the magnitude of value is not solely determined by production but also involves exchange and social demand. He criticizes the Soviet Union's planned economy for assuming value could be known prior to exchange and warns against repeating such mistakes in theories of a socialist system.

Heinrich emphasizes the need to distinguish between interpreting Marx's texts and analyzing the reality of commodity production and exchange. He discusses the social processes involved in determining the magnitude of value, including the reduction of complex labor to simple labor and the role of social evaluation in this process.

Heinrich addresses the mistake of conflating Marx's sequence of explanation with a sequence of existence or causality over time. He argues that value and value form can only exist simultaneously within the exchange relation, and that commodities only have magnitudes of value within this relational context.

Heinrich discusses the different interpretations of 'common' in the context of labor being the common social substance of value. He suggests that Marx's change in wording between editions of 'Capital' indicates a view of value substance as something that exists within the exchange relation, not independently.

Fred Moseley refutes the idea that value is known in production, emphasizing instead that value is produced and then expressed through exchange, specifically in the form of money. He argues against the USSR's application of Marx's theory and insists on the temporal sequence of production preceding sale in the circuit of capital.

The speakers address a question about market price oscillations and how they relate to the competition among capitalists to appropriate surplus value. Moseley explains that the total surplus value produced by workers is later divided among capitalists, with market power affecting the distribution but not the total production of surplus value.

Moseley discusses the need to update Marx's theory to account for the modern financial system where money is no longer a commodity like gold. He suggests that an oversupply of fiat money can lead to inflation, which is a starting point for understanding the role of money in contemporary capitalism.

The conversation turns to the role of cognitive labor in the production of value, with Moseley acknowledging the challenge this presents for Marxian theory. He suggests that cognitive labor, as a form of skilled labor, produces more value per hour but does not fundamentally alter the theory of surplus value.

Moseley addresses the question of monopoly capital, arguing that while it affects the distribution of surplus value, it does not impact the total production of surplus value unless it influences wages. He disagrees with Baran and Sweezy's view that monopoly capital increases surplus value, maintaining that it merely allows monopolies to claim a larger share.