Utopia Origin gold coin

We focus on some original approaches so as to find a solution to the coordination problem of the decentralised commodity economy in the different interpretations [and refutations] of Marx, stressing the central role of money. We reconstruct in a comparative perspective the approaches of two contemporary French scholars, Jean Cartelier and André Orléan and of two Russian economists, Isaak Rubin and Peter Struve who worked in the beginning of the last century. Our reconstruction starts with Marx although other approaches are also possible. Each of the four scholars under review offered his own methods of solving the issue of coordination. Although the ideas of the four authors intertwined, we can differentiate between two pairs namely Rubin/Orléan [part1] and Struve/Cartelier [part2]. This corresponds to the radicality of their analytical solutions. While the former pair upheld the theory of value [each one in his own way], the latter actually eliminated it [again each one in his own way].

Nous présentons des approches originales pour résoudre le «problème de la coordination» de léconomie marchande décentralisée, en soulignant le rôle central de la monnaie comme base de cette coordination. Nous reconstruisons dans une perspective comparative les approches de deux économistes français contemporains, Jean Cartelier et André Orléan [représentants du courant institutionnaliste monétaire français], en les confrontant avec les solutions des économistes russes Isaak Rubin et Peter Struve, qui écrivaient au début du siècle dernier. Chacun des quatre chercheurs a offert ses propres méthodes de résolution de la question de la coordination. Bien que les idées des quatre auteurs soient étroitement liées, nous pouvons distinguer deux couples, à savoir Rubin-Orléan [partie1/Part1] et Struve-Cartelier [partie2/Part2]. Cela correspond à la radicalité de leurs solutions analytiques. Tandis que les premiers auteurs maintiennent la théorie de la valeur [chacun à sa manière], les deuxièmes léliminent et la pensent inutile et redondante [à nouveau chacun à sa manière].

Presentamos los enfoques originales para resolver el «problema de la coordinación» de la economía mercantil descentralizada, al resaltar el rol central de la moneda como base de esta coordinación. Reconstruimos en una perspectiva comparativa los enfoques de dos economistas franceses contemporáneos, Jean Cartelier y André Orléan [representantes de la corriente institucionalista monetaria francesa], confrontándolos con las soluciones de los economistas rusos Isaak Rubin y Peter Struve, que escribían a comienzos del siglo pasado. Cada uno de los cuatro investigadores ha ofrecido sus propios métodos de resolución de la cuestión de la coordinación. Si bien las ideas de los cuatro autores están estrechamente vinculadas, podemos distinguir dos parejas: Rubin-Orléan [parte 1] y Struve-Cartelier [parte 2]. Esto correponde a la radicalidad de sus soluciones analíticas. Mientras que los primeros autores mantienen la teoría del valor [cada uno a su manera], los segundos la eliminan como teoría del valor y piensan que la misma es inútil y redundante [nuevamente, cada uno a su manera].

Mots-clés:

Keywords:

Palabras claves:

Codes JEL:

This text [part 1 and part 2] is a part of a joint project with D. Melnik, SU HSE Moscow. When preparing this study, I have benefited from discussions with: P.Alary, O.Ananyin, V.Avtonomov, A.Bouhaili, B.Chavance, A.Faudot, A.Freeman, G.Gloveli, Y.Goland, R.Hecker, J.Horvath, T.Houbenova, M.Itoh, J.-M.Harribey, V.Krasilshchikov, H.D. Kurtz, O.Lakomski-Laguerre, N.Makasheva, J.Maucourant, D.Melnik. F.Moseley, G.Pavanelli, Y.Rizopoulos, S.Takanaga, B.Théret, R.Tortajada, J.Vercueil and K.Yagi.

My special thanks to André Orléan and Jean Cartelier for their comments on the initial version. I have presented different versions of the paper at SU HSE Annual Conference in Moscow [April2018] and at the Conference on Marx in Tokyo [December2018]. I am grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and to the editors that helped me improve this study. I am the only one responsible for the theoretical standpoints and for the possible imprecisions.

2In the years when Rubin worked [and ten years before his major publications] another Russian scholar offered his solution to the problem of the commodity economy coordination. He abandoned for good not only Marxs labour theory [which will be dwelt upon below], but also to a certain degree the other leading theory that of marginal utility. Actually, Struve [1870-1944] eliminated the theory of value as such. It is noteworthy that a number of his theoretical reflections, can be found in another form in the works of one of our contemporaries and a colleague of Orléan i.e. the French economist Cartelier.

1.Peter Struves solutions: statistics and monetary accounting

3Peter Struve was a Marxist in his youth [he edited the first volume of the Capital in 1899], he took an interest in Marxs labour theory of value but as he put it, he saw very soon its limitations [Struve, 1900]. Subsequently, Struve became a prominent representative of the liberal community in Russia and exerted a strong influence through his disciples. Struves evolution as well as his political biography were featured in detail in Frank [1956] and in Pipes [1970, 1980].

7First, Struve placed exchanges at the core of every economic order which he defined as a system of interacting economies. In our view this corresponds to the hypothesis of the initial radical differentiation of the commodity producers. Struve developed his classification of the economy including three basic types: a combination of economies standing side by side, a system of interacting economies or an economic order and a society-economy, i.e. a subjective theological unity. In principle Struve regarded with criticism the different concepts of production [be they subjective, or objective or as a criterion for the periodization of the economic evolution in Marx]. According to Struve:

The traditional concept of production has as a consequence not only the inadequate naturalistic [or materialistic] definition of the term good, the role of this concept extends considerably further. The establishment of the leading role of the category of production in explaining the economic process, the forcible including of the latter in that category exerts a strong influence on the whole course of the development of the economic thought, of the whole structure of the system of economic views. [Struve, 1913/1916, vol.2, p.40, our translation]

In his article Originality and Peculiarity of Exchange, Struve noted:

Exchange, in the economic meaning of the word and the concept of the exchange itself has emerged as an economic concept is a completely primordial and entirely original actual state. The exchange is a relation involving other simpler relations but at the same time it cannot be segmented into these relations. [Struve, 2007b [1924], p.515]

[]

The economic world allows almost entirely inductively the probabilistic-statistical study. The application of the deductive method in its precise meaning of the word to the economic phenomena is capable of breeding only fictitious conclusions. [Ibid, p.531]

Therefore, the exchange has a leading role. This is the first analytical step in solving the problem of coordination.

The concepts of

I.Economic good

II. Price value

III. Money.

cannot do without one another. Their logical order is established as we have described it in the previous sentence. But this order could be reversed:

I.Money

II. Price value

III. Economic good.

[] because all these three concepts are just different aspects of an essentially unified phenomenon. [] Without the idea of measuring, measurability, comparability which is the essence of money, we cannot consider economic concepts such as price-value and good. And vice versa: money, as the specific phenomenon of a universal tool of exchange and payment is only the embodiment of the idea of measurability of the goods in the turnover and its price. [Struve, 1913/1916, vol.1, p.68, our translation]

In another work, Struve notes:

The empirical approach, opposite to the metaphysical one, maintains that the equality between commodities and goods is generated by and only by the process of exchange. There is, and there can be, no common substance, no equality prior to exchange, that is nothing exogenous to the exchange. It is obvious that from this point of view value cannot influence prices. In general, only the psychological process of evaluation precedes price formation. As regards value, it is the result of prices. [Struve, 1922, p.185]

9Thirdly, money and prices are therefore the leading initial categories of the commodity economy. Furthermore, they are closely interrelated. Struve puts it in the best way possible in the following long quotes:

We shall be told that money is needed for the fixing of prices. But this cannot embarrass us. Economic life is unthinkable without money according to our basic principle. Because the phenomenon of money does not boil down to some technique of the exchange and even does not require free exchange economy. The essence of money and its purpose anyway is to implement the continuous measurability and reversibility of the good, and to convert it into prices. The good which cannot be converted into prices is not an economic weal and therefore cannot be the subject of economic consideration. [Struve, 1913/1916, vol.2, p.44, our translation]

[]

We are told that the price cannot be derived from prices. We shall counter that by saying that the price cannot be derived from anything and that is so because of its character, on which we insist namely that it is an actual reality. In the real process of exchange the subjective moments from which the price is usually deduced and the moment of money are the actual prerequisites from which the reasoning must proceed. The subjective processes of assessment within the system of economies are attached to the objective fact money. And money implies another fact the price. We can dissociate ourselves from the price and money only in an isolated economy. This instruction has a gnoseological substantiation and importance in principle. [Ibid., p.65]

10What is the place of the concept of value within Struves system? As we have already mentioned, according to Struve value does not have an independent meaning apart from prices [this brings him close to Orléan]. It is a phantom [this brings him closer to Cartelier, we shall dwell on it further on]. To put it briefly, according to Struve value is an unnecessary category and the theories of value are redundant, because since Aristotle is has been known that what does not have a price does not have any value. For Struve the price is a fact while value is a norm [value is an ideal category, a category of what should be]. There are two models of shaping up prices resulting in a free price/volnyie or in an indicated price/ukaznie respectively. These two models correspond to the typical and normative value respectively. This duality can be detected throughout Struves economic works and is a manifestation of his methodological dualism [for details see Dmitriev, 2010, 2013 and Gloveli, 2014].

In the fate and significance of the idea of equilibrium we find something common with the idea of equality in the exchange and with the idea of the equal value. [...] All subjective theories of value starting from Turgot and Condillac considered that there is equality of good in the exchange; objective theories of value consider that equality and equilibrium as the law of exchange and the value as a substance. But by suspending the substantiality of value the subjective theory of value still introduces the equilibrium as a law and attributes a special place to it. [Struve, 2007a [1923], p.442]

12We must mention that Struve resolutely rejected the traditional concepts of equilibrium [static and dynamic] and introduced the concept of statistical or moving [in modern language non-stationary equilibrium]. Using the achievements of modern physics of that epoch Struve examined equilibrium as a special case of movement [Struve, 2007a [1923], p.452].

The category of price is the starting point for political economy as a science. For economists, incomes boil down to prices. It must be strongly emphasized that price is taken for granted by the political economy, it can be registered and can serve as an idiographic description of the economic activity in terms of statistics. [Struve, 1913/1916, vol.2, p.100, our translation]

There is a basic argumentation for money accounting, that is the result of the economizing principle, the principle of economic activity.

The activity of every economic subject is aimed at obtaining more for less, at realizing positive value differences. In the field of non-exchange natural economy this process can exclusively proceed in the form of subjective evaluations. In the field of the economy based on turnover and exchange this process becomes objective as regards price formations. [Ibid. p.22]

[]

Political economy cannot provide more information about profit than an accounting report or than Art. 101 [470] of our Law on the Artisan Tax which reads as follows: The net profit levied by a percentage tax is considered the difference calculated in the enterprises balance sheet for the past operative year, i.e. the difference between the sum of gross income and the actual costs and deductions for the same year. [Ibid., p.95]

[]

Only the statistical processing of initial data and precise accounting can answer a whole series of questions raised by the political economy which it has tried to solve deductively. The problem of accounting for the incomes of individual economies can be solved in this way only. The actual essence of the problem of distribution can be explained only by accounting. [Ibid., p.86]

The above quotes make it clear that things boil down to monetary accounting [incomes and profit are categories of accounting]. But there follows the question: What is the place of money and how does it appear in Struves model?

15Fifth, Struve did not have a special publication dedicated to money although he often dwelt on that topic. Struves views on money can be found in some paragraphs i.e. in the first volume of his book Economy and Price [Struve, 1913/1916, vol.1] [in chapter two he illustrated his methodology of dualism through money [p.67-79] and in chapter three, he dwelt on Decreed Price and Money [p.315-321]]. Struve set forth his views on money in his lectures of 1916 [Struve, 1916, p.161-164] as well as in one of his articles in French [Struve, 1922].

16Two methodological standpoints follow, first on the dualism of money and second, on the allegation of the relationship between the theory of money and the theory of prices associated with it.

17According to Struve, money has a double/dual origin reflecting the dual character of the general principle of the social and economic process. Or, as the author puts it, the existence of two tendencies a natural [heterogenic] or a rational [autogenic]. Moreover, this dichotomy should not be confused with another well-known dichotomy, namely metallism -nominalism. The latter is not a systemic dichotomy but a genetic, historical one. The latter shows only the very diverse paths of money development [Struve, 1916, p.165]:

Sticking to the facts we can apply the basic dualism of the public economic process to the phenomenon of money. The natural moment, the heterogenic moment, prevails in money over a long period of time, but the rational, autogenic moment is also there. The task and history of development, the theory of money boils down to the fact that the effect of the two moments mentioned above must be examined and assessed in the actual phenomenon of money. [...] Since from the viewpoint of basic dualism the theory of money is just a special case and a special issue of the theory of price then the same problem arises here in this significantly broader field [authors note: on dualism]. [Struve, 1913/1916, vol.1, p.79, our translation]

18The dualism mentioned above between money seen as a spontaneous, market and social act and money as a rational, determinate act of the government and the state, was examined by Struve in setting forth the age-old evolution of the monetary theory and monetary history through the ages. Struve illustrated main points of the history of monetary thought starting with Aristotle and the Roman jurists, paying special attention to the feudal theory of money and to the theory of Knapp which was popular in those years.

19Sixth, the functions of money were primarily, according to Struve, a means of payment and a means of exchange whereas the unit of account [means of measurement] was closely associated above all [but not only] with the means of payment. Struve considered that the means of payment and the means of exchange were equally represented in monetary history. One or the other function prevailed in different periods and communities [in the epoch of feudalism, for instance, the means of payment which manifested itself in the feudal theory of money had a leading role]. One often has the impression that Struve gave priority to the means of payment in historical, genetic terms [but not in systemic terms]. This is how Struve puts it:

The quality of money, i.e. the universal means of payment and then the means [tool] of exchange is associated above all with the objects of decoration namely because the objects of decoration serve as the best indicators of wealth for the primitive mind. [...] The initial function of money boils down to the function of a means of payment: money is initially a means of accumulating payments in the hands of persons who can easily attract values relying on the power they have in society. Such a role is played by all the payments to the strong and powerful authorities i.e. all kinds of fines. [Struve, 1916 p.161-163, our translation]

20Or, elsewhere:

Money grows from two roots: the exchange/interchange [a bilateral act] and the payment [a unilateral act]. But in as far as money has a state public and legal character, in as far as it is the object of regulation and is an autogenic phenomenon, according to us it emerges out of the payment order, of regulating the order of payments. [Struve, 1913/1916, vol.1, p.317, our translation]

21Finally, the systemic equal treatment of the two functions [means of payment and means of exchange] is related to the systemic equal treatment of the two types of prices [decreed/instructed and loose/free]. In one configuration the price scale comes from the rate of payments [through coin-money], and in the other configuration, this price scale comes from the norm of exchange [through money-commodity] [Struve, 1913/1916, vol.1, p.318-319; 1916 p.164].

22The dichotomy of money and prices set forth heretofore gave grounds for the Russian scholar to accept as equal the two leading monetary theories of that epoch, namely that of Menger and that of Knapp. Each one of the two theories feature one aspect of the dual monetary process. Mengers approach emphasizes spontaneity, heterogeneity and the function of exchange, whereas Knapps approach rationality, autogeneity and the function of the means of payment. Noteworthy is also the specific interpretation of Knapps theory which has not been featured as a state theory but as a sociological and a public theory. Knapp built a theory of payment community, payment union, within the frameworks of which a definite concentration of payment power [the state, banks, etc.] was formed [Struve, 1913/1916, vol.1 p.78]. There is a similarity here with Carteliers monetary networks.

According to Struve Knapps theory featured the process of rationalization of monetary affairs. Hence Struves approach to monetary policy:

The state and this has been manifested throughout the history of money circulation in the world is not omnipotent but it is not powerless either as regards money. [...] The idealization or nominalization of the monetary constraint is reduced to a simple order; this is the problem of the rational mastering of the complicated overlapping of phenomena in which the heterogenic element plays a significant role. Ignoring this element, exceeding the economic power of the state, immediately results in a collapse of monetary policy: the management of money circulation has become a monetary anarchy. [Struve, 1913/1916, vol.1, p.321, our translation]

And finally, we mention the role of imitation/mimetism in selecting the monetary bearer [as we have already mentioned that model was thoroughly developed by Orléan].

While these objects serve as individual decorations or distinctive signs they are not yet able to perform this function [N.N: first as a means of payment and ten as a means of exchange]. But the development of needs is determined by two tendencies: 1] an aspiration for separation and 2] a striving for levelling. The decoration arises individually, and then it becomes universal through imitation. This distinctive sign gradually obtains a general assessment, a certain fluidity [hodkost]. This is how the objects of decoration initially appeared in the role of money. [Struve, 1916, p.161-162, our translation]

2.Carteliers solution: payments systems and money accounting

26Subsequently Cartelier published separately or in co-authorship [with Benetti and Aglietta among others] articles and monographs, among which the most important for our theme are Marxs theory of value, exchange and surplus value: a suggested reformulation [1991]; La monnaie [1996], Comptabilité et pensée économique [2006], Beyond the Modern Academic Theory of Money [2012] Lintrus et labsent [2016], and also the papers presented at the Conference in Lyon dedicated to the 150thanniversary of the release of Marxs Capital [Cartelier, 2017]. Based on the publications above, I summarize Carteliers approach [without any claims that this approach cannot be set forth better in a different way].

28Indeed, all the major theoretical objectives and issues considered to be of importance by Marx [including those of the emergence of social classes and exploitation] have been preserved in the new monetary approach without resorting to the categories of labour and value. In a nutshell the monetary institution or the payment system [which we shall discuss below and which is a unity of the monetary institution and accounting] is the key element which solves the problem of the coordination of the private and social evaluations, of the organization of differentiated economic activities.

Each producer proceeds to his own private calculation so as to determine his personal effort, which he is ready to make in order to produce this or that good without these activities [efforts] being part of the goods for a potential market exchange. Each one decides at his own expense as a result of what he intends to obtain for his effort. But this effort is not known to the other producers and they do not take it into account. The market is the place of the confrontation of products of independent and decentralized activities. [Cartelier, 2016, p.21, our translation]

30We must add here that already in their first book Cartelier and Benetti criticized the so-called nomenclature hypothesis [hypothèse de nomenclature], i.e. the actual approach to solving the coordination problem and to studying the social relation. According to the nomenclature hypothesis, assigned [i.e. unexplained] sets of goods [use values] and sets of economic agents [with their preferences and techniques] are presupposed in the models of the theory of value [be it the labour or the neoclassical one].

This society, which is the subject of study here is mainly characterized by differentiation [séparation] of the elements that compose it. [...] The starting point of political economy is the existence of quantitative relationships in a society composed of multiple elements. This may be interpreted on the basis of two mutually excluding pieces of evidence: or [i] on the basis of numerous different accounts maintained in common account units; or [ii] through what we call the hypothesis of the nomenclature according to which numerous physically defined objects are considered to be given [and therefore always a priori] distributed between the elements of society. It is important for us to understand which of the two pieces of evidence is coherent with the concept of differentiation [séparation]. [Benetti & Cartelier, 1980, p.12]

31Moreover, according to Cartelier, labour [the labour service or labour power in Marxs model] as well as the bearer of labour [the worker] are not on the list of goods and economic because labour and waged relationships [which define capitalism or the wage-based economy/économie salariale] are non-market relations. Therefore, it is impossible for labour and waged labour to be logically integrated neither in the labour theory of value nor in the neoclassical theory of utility - they are artificially imposed on these two theories.

32According to Cartelier the waged labourer is not a market subject because there is neither a market for labour power nor a market for labour [labour relations can be understood only within the frameworks of the enterprise]. Unlike market relations, labour and waged relationships are not equivalent relationships. In order to develop further his analysis of labour relations Cartelier has dedicated his latest book precisely to the problem of integrating labour and waged relationships in economic models [Cartelier, 2016]. The author believes that a successful integration is only possible within the frameworks of a monetary approach, or as he has put it a payment systems approach.

34Thirdly, we have come to the monetary approach considered by Cartelier as the only right method of valuation. Cartelier refers to the value or money dilemma which is often included in the titles of his publications [Cartelier, 1996, p.45; 2012, p.165].

The main contention is that an internal criticism of Marxs theory of exchange and surplus value leads one to restate it in a different framework. This framework, which may be called the monetary approach, represent an alternative to the theory of value [Cartelier, 1991, p.257]

35What is however the monetary approach? The French authors contribution to this approach is important. In general, Cartelier considers that money is the leading social institution and there are neither markets nor capitalism without it. Money should be placed at the basis of each theoretical economic system [Cartelier, 1996]. In more concrete terms the payment system [the sum of payment matrixes] is the main instrument for comprehending the social relation. The payment system is a concrete product of the merger of two complementary social institutions, namely the monetary institution and the institution of double-entry accounting. The payment system replaces Marxs dual character of labour, it is a concrete form of existence of the monetary institution.

36Contrary to the usual way of regarding money as a technical facilitator of exchanges or as a government intervention device [see for a brief presentation of this view in Steve Fazzari and Hyman Minsky, 1984] Cartelier [2013] argues that money is a set of rules and mechanism that allow separate individuals to enter into economic relations and undertake decentralised actions through the writting in the accounts and transfering units of accounts from one account to another in the economy that is submitted to "market rule" [i.e. decentralisation, equivalence, etc.]. Cartelier then states that three rules define a payment system:

37[1] The nominal unit of account is a necessary condition for making individual actions known. This nominal unit may or not be defined in a material way [] [2] money is defined also by a minting process, i.e. by some rules determining the amount of means of payment made available to agents in order to make their actions effective in the market. [] The process by which they get the means of payment may vary [from the mining of gold to pure credit] but it must exist. The mining process is a generic term to denote the various ways through which people get money apart from their sales. [] Individual actions appear as interdependent according to a matrix of payments. Money is the name of that specific interdependence associated with decentralisation. The matrix of payments is the quantitative and synthetic expression of what is individual freedom in a market economy. [] [3] In general, individual agents experience non-zero balances, either monetary deficits or surpluses Cartelier [2013, p.165-170]

39Cartelier and his disciples consider that money is in the core of economic imbalance [the difference with the value theories that suggest equilibrium is evident]. Money is a form of decentralized coordination of economic activities, it is an alternative to the centralized clearing [see also Ulgen, 2013].

Accounts have a performative character. This is a consequence not only of the fact that accounts serve as an evidence before trade tribunals but also due to the fact that accounting is inseparable from law [the algebra of law, according to a well-known definition] and from fiscal relations. The settling of accounts on a date agreed upon in advance as well as all procedures associated thereof [checking by expert accountants, settling of accounts, legal settlements, bankruptcies, etc.] show to all participants the true value of each and every one of them. So, the economic society takes shape by actually watching itself through the accounting system. Accounting is not a technique of observing something that exists outside observation. Accounting is part of the market economy and capitalism. [Cartelier, 2006, p.1014, our translation]

41According to Cartelier accounting may be carried out in a monetary form only. To this effect accounting is an institution which adds to the monetary institution [and it is also incompatible with the theory of value]. Or, as Cartelier puts it:

In a nutshell, money as a unit of account, a universal means of payment and a basis of clearing balances is an inevitable prerequisite both for the analysis of market economy, be it a capitalist economy or not, as well as for the elaboration of an efficient accounting. [Cartelier, 2006, p.1016, our translation]

42We have already mentioned that by offering a new solution, different from Marxs one, to the problem of the coordination of economic activity, Cartelier preserves the spirit of Marxism. Part of the preservation of this spirit is the rediscovery - or the reconstruction - of a number of problems typical for Marx, namely the formation of classes, the place of the waged working class and the problems of exploitation.

43According to Cartelier the processes of the formation of various social groups [classes] as well as the emergence of exploitation can be redefined in the monetary paradigm of decentralized economy. Thus, relations of monetary dominance and monetary subordination emerge within the frameworks of monetary relations. They manifest themselves in the limited access to the means of payment which is characteristic of waged workers. Unlike Marx where the worker is defined as a separate individual having no access to the means of production [i.e. he is defined in production] here the waged worker is defined as having no access to the means of payment [i.e. an access to bank money, to bank credits]. This obstacle keeps him outside the market exchange and he has to resort to non-equivalent, non-market relations so as to have access to cash resources, to money as the technique of payment. The worker in Carteliers model has no access to and is detached from the exchange. Therefore, the theory of wages must proceed from this fact of the workers exclusion from the monetary networks. The waged relationship, which is non-market in character, is a function of the monetary relationship.

44As we have already noted, unlike other French institutionalists [e.g. Orléan], Cartelier devotes special attention to the problems of integration [or more precisely to the impossibility of integration] of the labour relations and waged labour into the economic models, including those of Marx. One of his latest book Lintrus et labsent [2016] is dedicated to this issue, where he dwells exhaustively on the issue of exploitation [2016, p.150-160]. Cartelier also dwells on the different types of exploitation and the various approaches to its roots [he devotes special attention to Fleurbaey [three types of exploitation] and to Ellerman [the illegitimacy of the employment contract]. Contradicting Marx, Cartelier considers that exploitation stems from the fact that labour power is not a commodity. Actually the waged worker is not an economic subject since he is not in a position to choose what to produce, how to produce it and in what quantity [Cartelier, 2016, p.165]. The waged relationship is not an exchange relationship, it is rather a relationship of subordination within the enterprise. Cartelier concludes:

Emphasizing the significant differences existing between a market economy and an economy based on waged labour, this book follows the same path as that of Marx, although it denies his argumentation based on the theory of value. It is important not to mix the utopia of the market economy with the reality of the capitalist economy. This helps us to clarify the purpose of criticism, not the decentralized exchange based on market but the exploitation of waged labour within the enterprise. We need to reconsider the very production conditions by trying to relieve them as much as possible from the effects of waged relationships. [Cartelier, 2016, p.168-169, our translation]

45All economic dependencies mentioned above are a consequence of Carteliers presentation of economic agents as bearers of accounts [or as accounts] unlike the neoclassical model, where they are items with definite preferences, production techniques, etc. Eventually we can sum up Carteliers approach in the scheme4 below where the theory of payment systems and monetary accounting hold a central place. Noteworthy is the fact that the theory of value is missing here: it is simply unnecessary.

46Finally, we must add that in their pioneer book back in 1980, Cartelier and Benetti believed that the monetary approach made it possible to regard the structuring of space [of goods/customer values and economic agents] as endogenous, generated by the money flows. The endogenous and money driven emergence of numerous goods and of the concrete activities as an alternative to the nomenclature hypothesis, and above all the describing of its specific mechanisms, is an extremely difficult and ambitious theoretical task which, in our view, remains unsolved. In general, the dynamics of the system is the weak spot of the model and the subsequent attempts at modelling it are aimed precisely to this effect [Benetti et al., 2013, 2018].

Concluding discussion

47In his letter to Kugelmann Marx formulated succinctly the problem of the coordination of the decentralized economic exchange, the role of the LV and the inability of the vulgar economists to solve theoretically that problem, being unable to define the profound categories of value and labour screened by the visible market variables:

All that palaver about the necessity of proving the concept of value comes from complete ignorance both of the subject dealt with and of scientific method. Every child knows that a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would perish. Every child knows, too, that the masses of products corresponding to the different needs require different and quantitatively determined masses of the total labour of society. That this necessity of the distribution of social labour in definite proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production but can only change the mode of its appearance, is self-evident. No natural laws can be done away with. What can change in historically different circumstances is only the form in which these laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional distribution of labour asserts itself, in the state of society where the interconnection of social labour is manifested in the private exchange of the individual products of labour, is precisely the exchange value of these products. Science consists precisely in demonstrating how the law of value asserts itself. So that if one wanted at the very beginning to explain all the phenomena which seemingly contradict that law, one would have to present the science before the science. [...]

[]

The vulgar economist has not the faintest idea that the actual everyday exchange relations cannot be directly identical with the magnitudes of value. The essence of bourgeois society consists precisely in this, that a priori there is no conscious social regulation of production. The rational and naturally necessary asserts itself only as a blindly working average. And then the vulgar economist thinks he has made a great discovery when, as against the revelation of the inner interconnection, he proudly claims that in appearance things look different. In fact, he boasts that he holds fast to appearance, and takes it for the ultimate. Why, then, have any science at all?

[Marx-Engels Correspondence, Marx to Kugelmann, Hanover, 11 July 1868, in public access at Marx/Engels Internet Archive, [marxists.org]]

50In the first approach [part 1] we associate, despite all the differences between them, the great Russian Marxist Rubin and the contemporary French institutionalist Orléan who offered a monetary theory of value. And although in Rubin, taking into account the hostile environment he lived in, the monetary approach was not thoroughly outlined [though it was clearly visible particularly in his Essays on Money], in Orléan the monetary theory of value was thoroughly developed and attracted numerous audiences, at least in France. The categories of money and value develop and form simultaneously. The theory of money pays a leading role in Orléans work and is equipoised by Rubin as regards the theory of value.

51The relation between the two theories is implemented by a specific third theory playing the role of an original theoretical bridge. The role of such a bridge within Rubins system is played by the theory of the forms of value and the theory of fetishism [Sobel, 2016] while the main method of the Russian scholar was Hegels dialectics. For its part the linking mission in Orléans model is implemented by the original theory of social authority. Money and value arise in his theory as an institutional product of the social interaction of actors and money and value are conventions. Orléans sociological approach is close to that of Girard, Simmel and Durkheim. In both Rubins and Orléans systems [with a various degree of radicality], exchange is placed at the core of the analysis, whereas value is regarded as a relation rather than as a substance.

52Paralleling this so called conventional qualitative monetary interpretation, there is another, more radical quantitative monetary interpretation of Marxs theory. This second variant of the monetary reconstruction of Marxs theory, which concludes to the denial of the need of the LTV and of the LV, can be found in Struves publications as well as in the works of Cartelier [part2]. Both Struve and Cartelier considered that the economic system could be illustrated by the monetary accounting system, consisting in the network of individual accounts showing the movement of the money flow. Prices [which are monetary by definition] play the leading role in this variant of the coordination of differentiated commodity producers. In Struves model the binding of the theory of money and the theory of prices [prices coincide with value] is implemented by the theory of monetary accounting and by the approach of the price statistification. For his part, Cartelier has developed a theory of payment systems, of payments matrices. Within the frameworks of this quantitative analysis of the monetary approach, it is possible to trace numerous major tenets of Marx directly set forth in monetary quantities. It implies stratification processes, social groups [including classes] formation, a dynamics of waged relationships and wages, the shaping and distribution of incomes, the exploitation of the waged labour, etc. These implications are displayed in Carteliers model in particular.

53Finally, the reviewed discussion on the key place of money in the coordination of the decentralized economy is of major importance in todays digital age. This challenges the basis of the mainstream economics which is still dominated by the real analysis, according to Schumpeters terms.

Please find the bibliography in Cyrillic here.

In Latin

AFEP [Association Française dÉconomie Politique] [2017], Légion dhonneur dAndré Orléan, 4octobre 2017, EHESS, Paris [intervention de M.Aglietta, R.Boyer, J.-P.Dupuy et F.Jany-Catrice], site AFEP: //assoeconomiepolitique.org/wp-content/uploads/JANY-CATRICE-Discours-LH-Le%CC%81gion-Honneur-du-041017-Version-finale-du-131117-FJC.pdf.

Aglietta M. [1976], Régulation et crises du capitalisme. LExpérience des États-Unis, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, coll.«Perspective de léconomique/Économie contemporaine».

Aglietta M. & A. Orléan [1982], La violence de la monnaie, Paris, Puf.

Aglietta M. & A. Orléan [dir.] [1995], Souveraineté, légitimité de la monnaie [séminaire organisé par le CREA, Centre de recherches en épistémologie appliquée], Paris, Association dÉconomie financière/CREA, coll.«Cahiers Finance, éthique, confiance».

Aglietta M. & A. Orléan [dir.] [1998], La monnaie souveraine, Paris, Odile Jacob.

Aglietta M. & A. Orléan [2002], La monnaie entre violence et confiance, Paris, Odile Jacob.

Alary P., Blanc J., Desmedt L. & B.Théret [dir.] [2016], Théories françaises de la monnaie, Paris, Puf.

Allisson F. [2015], Value and Prices in Russian Economic Thought. A Journey inside the Russian synthesis, 1890-1920, London, Routledge, coll.«Routledge studies in the history of economics».

Amin S. [2003], La loi de la valeur mondialisée. Valeur et prix dans le capitalisme. Marx actuel [édition augmentée], Paris, Delga/Le Temps des cerises.

Artous A. [2006], Le fétichisme chez Marx. Le marxisme comme théorie critique, Paris, Éditions Syllepse, coll.«Mille marxismes».

Artous A. [2003], Travail et émancipation sociale. Marx et le travail, Paris, Éditions Syllepse, coll.«Utopie critique».

Artus P. [2018], «The dynamics of capitalism is now clearly that foreseen by Karl Marx», Natixis Flash Economics, 16January 2018.

Artus P. [2010], «A Marxian interpretation of the crisis», Natixis Flash Economics, 10January 2010.

Aucuy M. [1908], Les systèmes socialistes déchange, Avant-propos de M.A. Deschamps, Paris, Felix-Alcan Éditeur.

Bedeschi G. [2001] [1981], Introduzione a Marx, Roma-Bari, Editori Laterza.

Bellofiore R., CohenD., DurandC. & A.Orléan [dir.]. [2018], Penser la monnaie et la finance avec Marx. Autour de Suzanne de Brunhoff, Rennes, Presse universitaire de Rennes, coll.«Économie, gestion et société».

Bellofiore R. [1989], «A monetary labor theory of value», Review of Radical Political Economics, vol.21, nos1-2, p.1-25. DOI: //doi.org/10.1177/048661348902100103 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Benetti C. & J. Cartelier [1980], Marchands, salariat et capitalistes, Paris, F.Maspero, coll.«Intervention en économie politique».

Benetti C. & J.Cartelier [2013], «After thirty years», in ÜlgenF et al. [eds], New Contributions to Monetary Analysis. The foundations of an alternative economic paradigm, London/New York, Routledge, coll.«Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking», p.19-26.

Benetti C., Béraud A., Klimovsky E. & A.Rebeyrol [2018], «Use values and exchange value in Marxs extended reproduction schemes», The European Journal of History of Economic Thought, vol.25 no5, p.986-1021. DOI: //doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2018.1523941 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Benetti C., Béraud A., Klimovsky E. and A. Rebeyrol [2013], «Monetary objectivity and physical objectivity in Marxs reproduction model», in ÜlgenF et al. [eds], New Contributions to Monetary Analysis. The foundations of an alternative economic paradigm, London/New York, Routledge, coll.«Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking», p. 68-90.

Blic D. de & J. Lazarus [2007], Sociologie de largent, Paris La Découverte, coll.«Repères».

Boldyrev I. & M. Kragh [2015], «Isaak Rubin: historian of economic thought during the Stalinization of social sciences in Soviet Russia», Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol.37, no3, p.363-386. DOI: //doi.org/10.1017/S1053837215000413 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Boldyrev I. [2012], «On Rubins interpretation of Marxs theory of money», in RubinI. [2012], Isaak Iljic Rubin. Marxforscher Ökonom Verbannter [1886-1937], Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge Sonderband 4, Hamburg, Argument Verlag, p.145-152.

Brunhoff S. de [1971], Loffre de la monnaie. Critique dun concept, Paris, F.Maspéro, coll.«Économie et socialisme».

Brunhoff S. de [1979], Les rapports dargent, Grenoble/Paris, Presses Universitaires de Grenoble/F.Maspéro, coll.«Intervention en économie politique».

Debreu G. [1959], Theory of Value. An Axiomatic Analysis of the Economic Equilibrium, New Haven and London, Yale University Press.

Calvez J.-Y. [2006] [1956], La pensée de Karl Marx, nouvelle éd., Paris, Le Seuil, coll.«Points. Essais».

Cartelier J. [1991], «Marxs theory of value, exchange and surplus value: a suggested reformulation», Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol.15, no3, p.257-269. DOI: //doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035169 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Cartelier J. [1996], La monnaie. Un exposé pour comprendre, un essai pour réfléchir, Paris, Flammarion, coll.«Dominos».

Cartelier J. [2006], «Comptabilité et pensée économique. Introduction à une réflexion théorique», Revue économique, vol.57, no5, p.1009-1032. DOI: //doi.org/10.3917/reco.575.1009 [consulté le 31 janvier 2020]

Cartelier J. [2013], «Beyond modern academic theory of money. From fiat money to payment system», in ÜlgenF et al. [eds], New Contributions to Monetary Analysis. The foundations of an alternative economic paradigm, London/New York, Routledge, coll.«Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking», p.153-171.

Cartelier J. [2016], Lintrus et labsent. Essaie sur le travail et le salariat dans la théorie économique, Paris, Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest. Site: //presses.parisnanterre.fr/?p=2819 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Cartelier J. [2017], «From the dual character of the labour embodied in commodities to payment matrices: a critical analysis of Marxs commodity theory», Lyon, Conference on Marx organised by Triangle and the European Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Site: //marx2018.sciencesconf.org/ [accessed 3 January 2020]

Cartelier J. [2018a], Money, Markets and Capital: a case for monetary analysis, London/New York Routledge, coll.«Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking».

Cartelier J. [2018b], «Accounts in a market economy: do they reveal the dual character of economic activity?», Conference on Clearing, Social Accounting, and Monetary Systems, CRIISEA, Amiens.

Chavance B. [1979], Les bases de léconomie politique du socialisme [essai dhistoire critique 1917 1954], Grenoble, Université des sciences sociales de Grenoble.

Cohen G. [2001] [1978], Karl Marxs Theory of History: a defence, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Clarke S. [1989], «The basic theory of capitalism: a critical review of Itoh and the Uno School», Capital & Class, vol.13, no1, p.133-149. DOI: //doi.org/10.1177%2F030981688903700108 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Deleplace G. [2013], «Unit of account and means of payment. From Benetti and Cartelier to David Ricardo» in ÜlgenF et al. [eds], New Contributions to Monetary Analysis. The foundations of an alternative economic paradigm, London/New York, Routledge, coll.«Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking», p.60-67.

De Lourdes Rollenberg Mollo, M. [2018], «La monnaie comme rapport social dans la pensée hétérodoxe française» in R. Bellofiore, CohenD., DurandC. & A.Orléan [dir.]. [2018], Penser la monnaie et la finance avec Marx. Autour de Suzanne de Brunhoff, Rennes, Presse universitaire de Rennes, coll.«Économie, gestion et société», p.75-103.

De Vroey M. [1981], «Value, Production, and Exchange» in SteedmanI. & P. Sweezy [eds], The Value Controversy, London, Verso Editions, p.173-201.

Dodd N. [2016], The Social Life of Money, Princeton-Oxford, Princeton University Press [1reedition 2014].

Dostaler G. [1978], Valeur et prix: histoire dun débat, Grenoble/Montréal/Paris, Presses universitaires de Grenoble/Presses de lUniversité du Québec/F.Maspero, coll.«Intervention en économie politique».

Duménil G. [2009], «Économie» inDuménilG., LöwyM. & E.Renault [dir.], Lire Marx, Paris, Puf, coll.«Quadriges», p.193-284.

Ellul J. [2003] [1947/1979], La pensée marxiste. Cours professé lInstitut détudes politiques de Bordeaux de 1947 à 1979, Paris, La Table Ronde, coll.«Contretemps».

Elster J. [1985], Making Sens of Marx, New York, Cambridge University Press.

Emmanuel A. [1969], Léchange inégal. Essais sur les antagonismes dans les rapports économiques internationaux, Paris, F.Maspero, coll.«Économie et socialisme».

Faccarello G. [1983], «La loi de la valeur et le problème de la coordination des activités économiques», LHomme et la société, nos67-68, p.153-177.

Fondu G. [2017], «En deçà du problème-Marx», [À propos de louvrage de Fred Moseley, Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marxs Logic in Capital and the end of the Transformation Problem], Revue de la régulation [En ligne], no21|1ersemestre/Spring, p.1-6. URL: //journals.openedition.org/regulation/12291 [consulté le 31janvier 2020]

Harribey J.-M. [2011], «La valeur, ni surplomb, ni hors-sol» [À propos de louvrage dAndré Orléan, Lempire de ka valeur. Refonder léconomie], Revue de la régulation [En ligne], no10|2esemestre/Autumn, p.1-13. URL: //journals.openedition.org/regulation/9483 [consulté le 31janvier 2020]

Harribey J.-M. [2013], La richesse, la valeur et linestimable. Fondements dune critique socio-écologique de léconomie capitaliste, Paris, Les Liens qui libèrent.

Harvey D. [2017], Marx, Capital and the Madness of Economic Reason, London, Profile Books.

Hellwig M. [1993], «The Challenge of Monetary Theory», European Economic Review, vol.37, nos2-3, p.215-242. DOI: //doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921[93]90014-2 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Hodgson G. [1982], Capitalism, value and exploitation: A radical theory, Oxford, Martin Robertson.

Hong H. [2000], «Marx and Menger on value: as many similarities as differences», Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol.24, no1, p.87-105. DOI: //doi.org/10.1093/cje/24.1.87 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Hong H. [2002], «Marxs value forms and Hayeks rules: a reinterpretation in the light of the dichotomy between physis and nomos», Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol.26, no5, p.613-635. DOI: //doi.org/10.1093/cje/26.5.613 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Ishikura M. [2018], «Marxs theory of value form and its contribution to understanding price mechanism», paper presented at the 2018 International Symposium of the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of K.Marx, Tokyo, Hosei University.

Itoh M. [2018], «Marxs Value Theory and the transformation Problem revisited Commenting on Fred Moseleys Macro Monetary Interpretation», paper presented at the 2018 International Symposium of the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of K.Marx, Tokyo, Hosei University.

Karatani K. [2014], The Structure of World History: From Modes of Production to Modes of Exchange, Durham, Duke University Press.

Knafo S. [2012], «Value-form approach» in FineB. & A.Saad-Filho [eds], The Elgar Companion to Marxist Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, p.367-372.

Kocherlakota N. [1998], «Money is Memory», Journal of Economic Theory, vol.81, no2, p.232-251. DOI: //doi.org/10.1006/jeth.1997.2357 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Kołakowski L. [1976/1978], Główne nurty marksizmu: powstanie, rozwój, rozkład, 3vol., Paris, Instytut Literacki.

Kuruma S. & M. Schauerte [des] [2018], Marxs Theory of the Genesis of Money. How, Why, and Through What is a Commodity Money?, , Chicago IL., Haylarked Books.

Lakomski-Laguerre O. [2016], «Joseph Schumpeters Credit View of Money: A Contribution to a Monetary Analysis of Capitalism», History of Political Economy, vol.48, no3, p.489-514. DOI: //doi.org/10.1215/00182702-3638655 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Lapidus A. [1986], Le détour de la valeur, Paris, Economica.

Lewin P. & N. Cachanosky [2019], Austrian Capital Theory: a modern survey of the essential, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Linder M. [1975], Reification and the consciousness of the critics of political economy. Studies in the development of Marxs theory of value, Copenhagen, Rhodos International Science and Art Publishers.

Lipietz A. [1983], Le monde enchanté: de la valeur à lenvol inflationniste, Paris, F.Maspero, coll.«Économie et socialisme».

Lordon F. & A. Orléan [2007], «Genèse de lÉtat et de la monnaie: le modèle de la potentia multitudinis», Revue du MAUSS permanente, 29avril 2007 [en ligne].

Lukàcs G. [1971] [1968], History and Class Consciousness. Studies in Marxist Dilaectics, London, Merlin Press.

Mattews P. [1996], «The modern foundations of Marxs monetary economics», The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol.3, no1, p.61-83. DOI: //doi.org/10.1080/10427719600000004 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Méda D. [2008], Le travail, Paris, Puf, coll.« Que sais-je?» [1re édition 2004].

Meek R. [1956], Studies in the Labour Theory of Value, London, Lawrence & Wishart.

Mehring P. [2011], The New Lombard Street. How the FED Became the Dealer of Last Resort, Princeton/Oxford, Princeton University Press.

Montalban M. [2012], «De la place de la théorie de la valeur et de la monnaie dans la théorie de la régulation: critique et synthèse», Revue de la régulation [En ligne], no12|2esemestre.

Moseley F. [1998], A critique of Benettis critique of Marxs derivation of the necessity of money, //www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/working%20papers/BENETTI.pdf

Moseley F. [2005], Marxs Theory of Money. Modern Appraisals, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Moseley F. [2016], Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marxs Logic in Capital and the end of the «TransformationProblem», Leiden/Boston, Brill.

Moseley F. [2017a], «Money and totality: a macro-monetary interpretation of Marxs logic in Capital and the end of the transformation problem», International Journal of Political Economy, vol.46, no1, p.2-21. DOI: //doi.org/10.1080/08911916.2017.1310469 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Moseley F. [2017b], «Reply», International Journal of Political Economy, vol.46, no1, p.43-49. DOI: //doi.org/10.1080/08911916.2017.1310473 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Nagatani K. [2018], «Value-form and the mystery of money» [digest version], paper presented at the 2018 International Symposium of the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of K.Marx, Tokyo, Hosei University.

Napoleoni C. [1973], Smith, Ricardo, Marx, [seconda edizione parzialemente rifatta], Torino, Editore Boringhieri.

Nelson A. [2014], Marxs Concept of Money, New York, Routledge.

Nenovsky N. [2009], «Place of labor and labor theory in Tugan Baranovskys theoretical system», The Kyoto Economic Review, vol.78, no1, p.53-77. URL: www.jstor.org/stable/43213372 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Nenovsky N. [2018], «War and the discussion on paper currency in Russia [1914-1917]. Elements of Mikhail Tugan-Baranovskys Monetary Theory», paper presented at the Conference «Les économistes et la première guerre mondiale», 22-23novembre 2018, Paris, École Militaire.

Nenovsky N. & P. Penchev [2018], «Between Carl Menger and Peter Struve: on the Russian Liberal Economics», History of Economic Ideas, vol.25, no3, p.11-40. DOI: 10.19272/201706103001 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Nenovsky N. & D. Torre [2015], «Productivity-based protectionism: a Marxian reconstruction of Mihail Manoilescus theory», Journal of Economic Issues, vol.49, no3, p.772-786. DOI: //doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2015.1072388 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Okada M. [2014], «A reassessment of Marxs thought on labour exchange», Review of Political Economy, vol.26, no3, p.408-425. DOI: //doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2014.923592 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Orléan A. [2011a], Lempire de la valeur. Refonder léconomie, Paris, LeSeuil, coll.«La couleur des idées».

Orléan A. [2011b], «Réponse à Jean-Marie Harribey», Revue de la régulation [En ligne], no10|2esemestre/Autumn. URL: //journals.openedition.org/regulation/9502

Orléan A & R.Diaz-Bone [2013], «Entretien avec André Orléan, par Rainer Diaz-Bone», Revue de la régulation [En ligne], no14|2esemestre/Autumn.

Orléan A. [2016], «La sociologie économique de la monnaie», in Alary P. et al. [dir.], Théories françaises de la monnaie, Paris, Puf, p.33-65 [1reédition 2013].

Orléan A. [2017], «Réflexions sur la théorie marxiste de la monnaie», inColliot-Thélène C. [dir.], Que reste-t-il de Marx?, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, p.93-116.

Orléan A. [2018], «De quelques débats à propos de la production marchande chez Marx», in Bellofiore R., CohenD., DurandC. & A.Orléan [dir.]. [2018], Penser la monnaie et la finance avec Marx. Autour de Suzanne de Brunhoff, Rennes, Presse universitaire de Rennes, coll.«Économie, gestion et société», p.45-74.

Ostroy J. & R. Starr [1974], «Money as the decentralisation of exchange», Econometrica, vol.42, no6, p.1093-1113.

Pipes R. [1970], Struve: Liberal on the Left, 1870-1905, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Pipes R [1980], Struve: Liberal on the Right, 1905-1944, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Poulon F. [2016], La pensée monétaire, Malakoff, Dunod.

Rachline F. [1982], «La nature de la monnaie», Revue économique, vol.33, no3, p.446-475.

Roemer J. [1982], A General Theory of Exploitation and Class, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Rosdolsky R. [1977] [1968], The Making of Marxs Capital, London, Pluto Press.

Roubine I. [Rubin I.] [2009] [1928], Essaie sur la théorie de la valeur de Marx, Paris, Éditions Syllepse, coll.«Mille marxismes».

Rubin I. [2011], «Isaak Iljic Rubin. Marxforscher Ökonom Verbannter [1886-1937]», Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge Sonderband 4, Hamburg, Argument Verlag.

Salama P. [1972], Un procès de sous-développement le cas de lAmérique latine. Essai sur les limites de laccumulation nationale du capital dans les économies semis-industrialisées, Paris, F.Maspero, coll.«Livres critiques de léconomie politique».

Salama P. [1975], Sur la valeur. Éléments pour une critique, Paris, F.Maspero, «Petite collection Maspero».

Salama P. & T. HaiHac [1992], Introduction à léconomie de Marx, Paris, La Découverte, coll.«Repères».

Shaikh A. [1981], «The poverty of algebra» in SteedmanI. & P.Sweezy [eds], The Value Controversy, London, Verso Editions, p.266-300.

Schefold B. [2016], «Profits equal surplus value on average and the significance of this result for the Marxian theory of accumulation», Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol.40, no1, p.165-199. DOI: //doi.org/10.1093/cje/beu077 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Schmitt B. [1975], Théorie unitaire de la monnaie nationale et internationale, Albeuve [Suisse], Castella.

Screpanti E. [2015], «Karl Marx on wage labour: from natural abstraction to formal substitution», Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia Politica e Statistica, no720, Universita di Siena.

Sobel R. [2016], «Fétichisme de la marchandise et ontologie sociale chez Marx. Interprétation essentialiste versus interprétation constructiviste», Cahier déconomie Politique, vol.70, no1, p.45-74.

Soda K. [1909], Geld und Wert: eine logische Studie, Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr [P. Siebeck].

Spahn HP [2007], «Money as a social bookkeeping device. From mercantilism to General Equilibrium theory» in GiacominA. & M.C.Marcuzzo [eds], Money and Markets. A doctrinal approach, London, Routledge, p.150-165.

Sperotto F. [2001], «Mercato nazionale e autosufficienza dei sistemi economici nellImpero russo», Studi Storici, vol.42, no3, p.673-736. URL: www.jstor.org/stable/41057579 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Steedman I. [1981] [1979], «Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa» in SteedmanI. & P.Sweezy [eds], The Value Controversy, London, Verso Editions, p.11-19.

Steedman I. [1977], Marx after Sraffa, London, New Left Books.

Schumpeter J. [2014] [1929], Treatise on Money, Aalten, Word Bridge Publishing.

Struve P. [1921a], «Lidée de loi naturelle dans la science économique», Revue déconomie politique, vol.35, no3, p.294-317. URL: www.jstor.org/stable/24683536 [consulté le 31janvier 2020]

Struve P. [1921b], «Lidée de loi naturelle dans la science économique», Revue déconomie politique, vol.35, no4, p.463-477. URL: www.jstor.org/stable/24683565 [consulté le 31janvier 2020]

Struve P. [1922], «Prix-valeur. Énoncés fondamentaux», Revue déconomie politique, vol.36, no2, p.181-196. URL: www.jstor.org/stable/24683700 [consulté le 31janvier 2020]

Struve P. [1934], «My contacts and conflicts with Lenin», The Slavonic and East European Review, vol.12, no36, p.573-595, and vol.13, no37, p.66-84.

Struve P. [1936/1937], «Gegenstandstheoretische grundlagen der wirtschaftswissenschaft und deren methodische konsequenzen», Proceedings of the Statistical Institute for Economic Research, Sofia, no4, p.5-32.

Struve P. [1937], «Kinjunktur als wirtschaftstheoretisches Problem», Proceedings of the Statistical Institute for Economic Research, Sofia, no1, p.5-14.

Sweezy P. [1962] [1942], The Theory of Capitalist Development. Principles of Marxian Political Economy, London, Dennis Dobson Limited.

Sweezy P. & I. Steedman [eds] [1981], The Value Controversy, London, Verso Editions.

Takenaga S. [2017b], Essays on Marxs Theory of Money of I. I. Rubin, //marxismocritico.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/susumi-rubin-on-marx-s-theory-of-money.pdf.

Théret B. [2008], «Les trois états de la monnaie. Approche interdisciplinaire du fait monétaire », Revue économique, vol.59, no4, p.813841.

Théret B. [2009], «Monnaie et dettes de vie», LHomme, vol.2, no190, p.153179.

Wiles P.J.D. [1962], The Political Economy of Communism, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

Ülgen F. [2013], «Coordination in economy. An essay on money» in ÜlgenF et al. [eds], New Contributions to Monetary Analysis. The foundations of an alternative economic paradigm, London/New York, Routledge, coll.«Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking», p.172-187.

Yagi K., YokokawaN., HagiwaraSh. & G.Dymski [eds] [2013], Crises of global economies and the future of capitalism: reviving Marxian crisis theory, Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge.

Yoshimura N. [2018], «Recent Trends in Value Theory», paper presented at the 2018 International Symposium of the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of K.Marx, Tokyo, Hosei University.

Zeleny J. [1980], The Logic of Marx, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

• Français
  • English

• Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+