Abstract
This conviction of mine [i.e. that a reading of the history of Italian Marxisms should be given which is different from that underlying Cristina Corradi’s book (Corradi, Storia dei marxismi in Italia, 2005)] is based, indeed, on the very distinction between Marxists and Marxians, which I consider to be decisive. This distinction is not chronological, as if in the 1970s everybody was a Marxist, while after that, out of the blue, the Marxians arrived and were welcomed. The truth is that such an authentically Marxian thread has, in fact, existed, and is defined by some crucial aspects. First, by a return to Marx’s original problems, which had been buried by Marxism: those linked to the monetary constitution of surplus value and those referring to the re-linking of (new) value to (living) labour. And then, [second,] the absence [in Marx] of any separation between the ‘economic’ sides of these problems and those problems concerning their ‘philosophical’ and ‘sociological’ foundations. Finally, the attempt of taking up the enterprise of the critique of political economy again, in a non-dogmatic and non-repetitive way. This thread dates back, however, and has a long history throughout the twentieth century. In order to bring to light the traces of this development, it is necessary to read the history of the discussion on Marx in a very different way from that practised until now.
Translated and edited by Frieder Otto Wolf
This article is a strongly shortened, and somewhat edited, translation of Bellofiore’s seminal article ‘Quelli del lavoro vivo’ (Bellofiore 2007, pp. 197–250)—with several ‘introductory remarks’ from the translator added. Frieder Otto Wolf takes full responsibility for the editing and translation into English, the comments and the short ‘Introductory Remarks’. Additional names to those found in the bibliography can be looked up in the commented bibliography published in the Italian original. As this more extensive bibliography is openly accessible online, and can also be understood by non-Italian readers, it has—for reasons of space—not been included in this volume. See http://www.dialetticaefilosofia.it/scheda-filosofia-saggi.asp?id=25.
Title and subtitle are the translator’s. [In the following, the notes of the translator are marked by brackets as here.]
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
[Or anyone who has taken a real look at the MEGA2 edition dealing with Marx’s manuscripts on the complex issue of Capital.] [MEGA2, Abt. II Das ‘Kapital’ und Vorarbeiten, cf. the official presentation at http://mega.bbaw.de/struktur/abteilung_ii, as well as Michael Heinrich’s Invaders from Marx. On the Uses of Marxian Theory, and the Difficulties of a Contemporary Reading (https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/marxs-capital-after-mega2-michael-heinrich/).]
- 2.
[Cf. Michael Krätke’s (2017) defence of Engels’s difficult work in this respect.]
- 3.
[Cf. the short description of the state of this edition (following its conclusion) given in Michael Heinrich’s An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital (2012). For those who read German, see Hecker 2003.]
- 4.
[I tend to argue that this is a more careful formulation of what is generally (also in the following text)—although practically not in Marx—referred to as ‘capitalism’, cf. my ‘What capitalism is, what it means to be against it, and what it takes to end it: Some remarks to prevent a renewal of blind alleys’, in Returns of Marxism. Marxist Theory in a Time of Crisis (=IIRE Notebooks for Study and Research, No. 57), edited Sarah R. Farris pp. 101–127.]
- 5.
[In the following, remarks of the translator are placed in brackets like this one.]
- 6.
[For the sake of transparency, the translator has also marked additions like this, made for the sake of clarity or for smooth reading, with brackets, and in some cases, where his translation follows the need for a certain liberty of expression, by adding the Italian word(s) in brackets as well.]
- 7.
- 8.
[I tend to think that this is true exactly as Bellofiore formulates it here: this tendency towards self-reproduction is, as it were, the in-built tendency of capital as such—but in reality is incapable of overcoming what Marx reflected as ‘the limits of dialectical presentation’, i.e. the real limitations of the ecological system(s) of the planet Earth, of human biological and cultural reproduction, and of the conditions for international peace—in the sense of replacing them by processes internal to the accumulation of capital, not in the sense of disrupting them, occasionally or fatally, cf. my remarks in Wolf 2004.]
- 9.
[At this point, as Bellofiore adds, his reconstruction of Marx coincides with that of Chris Arthur—cf. e.g. Arthur 1986.]
- 10.
[Here, Bellofiore marks the point at which the path he has taken diverged from the one followed by Roberto Finelli (Finelli 1987) in his attempt to extend ‘the ontological circle of Hegel’ to an epistemological and even anthropological circle’, which ignores Marx’s critique of Hegel, cf. also Sbardella 2007.]
- 11.
[This statement, which I take to be a dismissal of the Althusserian effort to understand the epistemological breakthrough to the scientific understanding of capital’s domination in modern bourgeois societies, deserves further discussion. As a starting point, I refer to Urs Lindner’s critical survey of the debate on Marx’s philosophy (Lindner 2013).]
- 12.
[Bellofiore refers to Cristina Corradi as an example.]
- 13.
[In English, it is not possible to translate the subtle distinction, possible both in German and in Italian, between a [mere] ‘Beziehung’ or ‘relazione’ and a [more important] ‘Verhältnis’ or ‘rapporto’, which is more than its quantitative side, aptly expressed in English by ‘proportion’.]
- 14.
[Here, Bellofiore refers to the ample use made of the term by Maria Turchetto in her contribution (Turchetto 2007).]
- 15.
[Here, Bellofiore accuses especially Athusser, and Althusserian Marxism, of not even having read the first section of Capital—and therefore to lose any access to Marx’s argument from the very beginning.]
- 16.
[In the following paragraph, Bellofiore situates his own ‘personal intellectual biography’ within the developments delineated above, defining his relations with a considerable number of participants of recent Italian debates in the field his article refers to.]
- 17.
[In the following lines, Bellofiore (rather convincingly) imagines the impact Rubin’s book might have had on the Italian debate, had it appeared ‘in time’.]
- 18.
[This is then further elaborated by Bellofiore, underlining Rubin’s capacity to see the capitalist character permeating the entire process from its very beginnings.]
- 19.
[Here, Bellofiore follows Nicolò Bellanca’s interpretation of Croce (Bellanca 1992), which is centred upon Croce’s ‘elliptic comparisons’ in spite of their differences ‘on the terrain of reconstruction [of Marxian theory]’.]
- 20.
In other words those simple prices, i.e. [the prices which are directly] proportional to the labour contained [in the commodities], expressed in money—which will effectively regulate the exchange, in a situation, when the value composition of capital within the diverse sectors is the same, or in that situation there is no [generalised] rate of profit.
- 21.
In other words the capitalist prices which are fixed when the [prevailing] distributive rule guarantees an equal distribution of gross profits in proportion to the entirety of advanced capital, variable as well as constant.
- 22.
[Bellofiore underlines here that Rubin’s reading of this transformation is still closely related to that defended by those who rely on ‘living labour’.]
- 23.
[Written in German and circulated as a mimeographed paper at the New York Institute for Social Research in 1941; then published in German in 1969 only.]
- 24.
[Bellofiore underlines that Luxemburg’s choice in this context is much more than a personal predilection.]
- 25.
In the function of the innovations which revolutionise the technical structure, as well as the organisation of labour, and in the function of the social antagonism in the places of production.
- 26.
[The following paragraph 4.4 begins by specifying the personal way in which Bellofiore has become aware of the developments just delineated. We take it up from where it returns to the general theoretical development, after having postulated, referring back to his own doctoral dissertation, an ‘integration of the two threads which are usually kept separate, [i.e.] the [theories of a] so-called crisis of “disproportion” and [of an] – erroneously, as we shall see – so-called crisis of ‘underconsumption’ into a unified theory of a crisis of realization’. Bellofiore underlines that it seems to be ‘possible to derive a complementarity here from a “reconstruction” of Luxemburg’s argument: the Polish revolutionary has in fact furnished all the elements required for this’.]
- 27.
[It would be useful to have an English translation of a major, but largely forgotten work on this very issue, deriving from the West Berlin branch of the ‘Reading Capital movement’ since the 1960s, i.e. the ‘crisis project’s’ ambitious attempt to reconstruct Marx’s theory of the capitalist crisis from his published texts (cf. Bader et al. 1975).]
- 28.
[Bellofiore adds that these readings of Marx have clearly been ‘historically situated’, and goes on to refer it to the ‘new quality of the conflicts acted out by the workers [una qualità nuova del conflitto operario].]
- 29.
[Bellofiore here refers to Ian Steedman’s (1977) ‘glorious “demonstration”’ of precisely this redundancy, as well as to the fact that this argument was already known in Italy, due to the Napoleoni of the 1960s.]
- 30.
[Bellofiore explains here his close relation to Marcello Messori, who works on these very issues.]
- 31.
[Bellofiore opens this paragraph with a complex autobiographical reference of how he shared with some colleagues, among whom he mentions Riccardo Realfonzo, ‘the conviction that all kinds of a theory of the money-commodity should be rejected’ and maintains his position concerning the ‘crucial role of the money-commodity’, although he would reformulate it today in a language closer to that of Roberto Finelli.]
- 32.
[Bellofiore discusses here, how Graziani (cf. Arena and Salvadori 2004), picking up from Napoleoni, brought [the issue of] ‘the financing of production by banks’ into the centre of the debate.]
- 33.
- 34.
[Bellofiore is evidently referring here to Screpanti 2001.]
- 35.
[Here Bellofiore refers to Messori, with whom he shares this approach to these problems, in spite of all differences, and recalls the respective debates of the late 1970s and early 1980s.]
- 36.
[At this point, Bellofiore again refers to Corradi’s discussion of the authors who had claimed to have solved this problem.]
- 37.
[Bellofiore criticises Napoleoni here for referring to this problem as one for which a solution is yet to be found.]
- 38.
I shall return to this in the next section.
- 39.
[Bellofiore refers here to his own attempts to solve these problems, already in his very first contributions to the debate.]
- 40.
[Bellofiore refers to a 1983 article by Graziani, which he claims coincides with his own position.]
- 41.
[Bellofiore adds an argument concerning the central importance of the reduction of value to labour only.]
- 42.
[In the following section 6.2, Bellofiore develops ‘how this reasoning develops, if dynamic competition is taken into account’, referring, again, to Messori’s and his own contributions on this issue, and pointing to the debate which emerged in this respect with contributions from Stefano Perri, Giorgio Gattei, Duncan Foley and Fred Moseley, finally leading to a rehabilitation of ‘the two equations of Marx, in the very letters of the Marxian text’. This is further expanded in section 6.3, by focusing especially upon the interpretation of Sraffa, with special focus on his ‘temporal‘ reading of Marx (cf. the Temporal Single System Interpretation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_single-system_interpretation ), following a contribution by Dario Preti (2002), and referring to interventions by Gattei (2003), Perri (1998) and Bellofiore (2008), then extending it to Sraffa’s positive relations to Marx’s labour theory of value, as it is visible in his letters and unedited manuscripts.]
- 43.
- 44.
[However, the question has to be introduced here as to which kind of ‘social’ and ‘political’ terms we are looking at: if these are conceived in terms of the dominant forms of the social and historical sciences, Bellofiore’s argument is convincing—but the task of developing different kinds of scientific terms in these fields of inquiry, which take their starting points from Marx’s Critique of Political Economy (as well as from his later critique of politics), still remains open—and is urgent need of discussion.]
- 45.
Bellofiore 1982, p. 104 [Bellofiore adds here: ‘These very sentences have been taken up again in the 1990s in Vis-à-Vis, as well as in Trimestre’.]
- 46.
[Bellofiore adds two paragraphs here, in which he shows that Napoleoni also addressed this issue. The points most relevant for the further argument are found in the second paragraph, which is translated here almost completely.]
- 47.
[At this point, the difficulties resulting from the fact that there are two words for the Italian ‘lavoro’ in English, which in its usage is structurally close to the German ‘Arbeit’, become all too evident in the English translation.]
- 48.
- 49.
[Bellofiore underlines here that before Perri (1996a), these interpretations were far too dependent on the New Reading, rereading it by following the ‘way of Pasinetti’ (cf. the classical critique in Samuelson and Modigliani 1966), i.e. by modelling an ‘analysis of a monetary production economy’ without class struggle.]
- 50.
[In Bellofiore’s text, it is not grammatically clear which is the subject of this sentence. I ascertain from the gist of the argument that it is labour power, referring back to ‘living labour’, which is inseparable from the workers.]
- 51.
[For details, Bellofiore here refers to the reading proposed by Raffaele Sbardella (2007).]
- 52.
[Supposedly, this quote comes from the text Bellofiore quoted in the middle of section 7.1 (see footnote 50.]
- 53.
[Bellofiore is indubitably correct so far, cf. in German Krätke 2017. A potential misunderstanding of this—which Bellofiore does not fall into, although he does not point to it clearly—should, however, be avoided: Marx’s critique of political economy at once refers back to the classics (and their important continuators which also exist within the Marxist tradition, like Vargas or Mandel, or at its margins, like Sraffa), and marking a break with the limited and uncritical perspective even of the ‘classics’ like Smith and Ricardo, which Althusser hinted at with his notion of the ‘epistemological break’. Authors like Gérard Duménil and Dominique Lévy (cf. Duménil and Lévy 2013) have tried for some time now to address this double challenge, one side of which Bellofiore is, as it were, ‘playing down’ here.]
- 54.
[For a critical perspective on this ‘short-hand expression’ cf. above, footnote 6.]
Bibliography
Alcaro, M. (1977). Dellavolpismo e nuova sinistra. Bari: Dedalo.
Arena, R., & Salvadori, N. (2004). Money, Credit, and the Role of the State. Essays in Honour of Augusto Graziani. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Arthur, C. J. (1986). Dialectics of Labour: Marx and His Relation to Hegel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bader, V., et al. (1975). Krise und Kapitalismus bei Marx. Frankfurt: EVA.
Baran, P., & Sweezy, P. (1966). Monopoly Capital. An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order. New York/London: Monthly Review Press.
Bellanca, N. (1992). Marx secondo Croce. La teoria economica “comparativa” del capitalismo. Storia del pensiero economico, 24, 39–60.
Bellofiore, R. (1980). Lavoro astratto, valore e prezzo di produzione. Studi economici, 12, 57–87.
Bellofiore, R. (1982). L’operaismo italiano e la critica dell’economia politica. Unità Proletaria, (1–2), 100–112.
Bellofiore, R. (1991). La passione della ragione. Scienza economica e teoria critica in Claudio Napoleoni. Milan: Unicopli.
Bellofiore, R. (1993a). Per una teoria monetaria del valore-lavoro. La teoria marxiana tra radici ricardiane e nuove vie di ricerca. In G. Lunghini (Ed.), Valore e prezzi (pp. 63–117). Torino: Utet.
Bellofiore, R. (1993b). Quale Napoleoni?. Il pensiero economico italiano, numero monografico: L’eredità di Claudio Napoleoni, (2), 99–135.
Bellofiore, R. (1996a). Marx rivisitato: capitale, lavoro, sfruttamento. Trimestre, special issue: Il terzo libro del Capitale di Marx, (M. L. Guidi, Ed.), XXIX, (1–2), 29–86.
Bellofiore, R. (1996b). Sraffa in Context. Research in Political Economy, numero monografico: The Sraffa Tradition, xv, 305–314.
Bellofiore, R. (Ed.) (1998a). Marxian Economics: A Reappraisal, Vol. 1: Essays on Vol. III of Capital: Method, Value and Money. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bellofiore, R. (Ed.) (1998b). Marxian Economics: A Reappraisal, Vol. 2: Essays on Vol. III of Capital: Profits, Prices and Dynamics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bellofiore, R. (1999, May–April). Quanto vale il valore lavoro? La discussione italiana intorno a Marx: 1968–1976. Rivista di politica economica, 33–76.
Bellofiore, R. (2001). Monetary Analyses in Sraffa’s Writings: A Comment on Panico. In T. Cozzi & R. Marchionatti (Eds.), Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy. A Centenary Estimate (pp. 362–376). London: Routledge.
Bellofiore, R. (2005a). The Monetary Aspects of the Capitalist Process in the Marxian System: An Investigation from the Point of View of the Theory of the Monetary Circuit. In F. Moseley (Ed.), Marx’s Theory of Money: Modern Appraisals (pp. 124–139). Baskingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Bellofiore, R. (2005b, June 3–4). Teoria del valore, crisi generale e capitale monopolistico Napoleoni in dialogo con Sweezy. Contribution to the Annual Congress of the Associazione Italiana di Storia dell’Economia Politica (STOREP).
Bellofiore, R. (Ed.). (2005c). Rosa Luxemburg and the Critique to Political Economy. Basingstoke: Routledge.
Bellofiore, R. (Ed.). (2007). Da Marx a Marx? Un bilancio dei marxismi italiani del Novecento. Rome: Manifestolibri.
Bellofiore, R. (2008). Sraffa After Marx, an Open Issue. In G. Chiodi & D. Leonardo Ditta (Eds.), Sraffa or an Alternative Economics (pp. 68–92). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bellofiore, R. (2015). Claudio Napoleoni e il Capitale monopolistico di Baran e Sweezy. Moneta e Credito, 68(269), 3–39.
Bellofiore, R., & Fineschi, R. (Eds.). (2009). Re-reading Marx: New Perspectives After the Critical Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bellofiore, R., & Guidi, M. (1986). Portata e limiti della ripresa sraffiana dell’economia politica classica. Tra teoria e grande culturaeuropea: Piero Sraffa (Franco Angeli), pp. 93–128.
Bellofiore, R., & Potier, J. P. (1998). Piero Sraffa: nuovi elementi sulla biografia e sulla ricezione di Produzione di merci in Italia. In N. Salvadori (Ed.), Omaggio a Piero Sraffa (1898–1983). Storia Teoria Documenti, Il pensiero economico italiano (No. 1, pp. 7–55).
Bellofiore, R., & Realfonzo, R. (1997). Finance and the Labor Theory of Value. Toward a Macroeconomic Theory of Distribution from a Monetary Perspective. International Journal of Political Economy, Thematic Number on Marxian Theory: The Italian Debate, XXVII(2, Summer), 97–118.
Bellofiore, R., Realfonzo, R., & Davanzanti, G. F. (2000). Marx Inside the Circuit. Discipline Device, Wage Bargaining and Unemployment in a Sequential Monetary Economy. Review of Political Economy, XII(4), 403–417.
Campbell, M., & Reuten, G. (2001). The Culmination of Capital. Essays on Volume Three of Marx’s Capital. Weisbaden: Springer.
Colletti, L. (1968). Bernstein e il marxismo della Seconda Internazionale. Preface. In E. Bernstein (Ed.), I presupposti del socialismo e i compiti della sozialdemocracia (pp. vii–lxxxii). Bari: Laterza. (Republished in: Id. Ideologia e società, Rome-Bari: Laterza 1969, pp. 61–147; English translation in Colletti 1972, 45–108).
Colletti, L. (2011) [1969]. Marxism and Hegel. London: Verso.
Colletti, L. (1972). From Rousseau to Lenin: Studies in Ideology and Society. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Colletti, L. (1974). Intervista politico-filosofica, con un saggio su Marxismo e dialettica. Rome-Bari: Laterza.
Colletti, L., & Napoleoni, C. (Eds.). (1970). Il futuro del capitalismo: crollo o sviluppo. Bari: Laterza.
Corradi, C. (2005). Storia dei marxismi in Italia. Rome: Manifestolibri.
della Volpe, G. (1957). Rousseau e Marx e altri saggi di critica materialistica. Rome: Editori Riuniti.
della Volpe, G. (1979). Rousseau and Marx and Other Writings. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
della Volpe, G. (1980) Logic as a Positive Science (J. Rothschild, Trans.). London: New Left Books.
Duménil, G., & Lévy, D. (2013). The Crisis of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Finelli, R. (1987). Astrazione e dialettica dal romanticismo al capitalismo. Rome: Bulzoni.
Finelli, R. (2004). Un parricidio mancato. Hegel e il giovane Marx. Torino: Bollato Boringhieri.
Finelli, R. (2014). Un parricidio compiuto. Il confronto finale di Marx con Hegel. Milan: Jaca Books.
Fraser, J. (1977). Introduction to the Thought of Galvano Della Volpe. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Gattei, G. (1995). La teoria monetaria dalla produzione. Arezzo: Banca Popolare dell'Etruria e del Lazio—Studi e Ricerche.
Gattei, G. (2003). The Monetary Theory of Production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gattei, G. (2007). ‘Il via crucis dei marxismi italiani’ in Bellofiore 2007.
Graziani, A. (1983, July 27). Riabilitiamo la teoria del valore. l’Unità.
Graziani. (1995). The Theory of the Monetary Circuit. In M. Musella & C. Panico (Eds.), The Money Supply in the Economic Process: A Post Keynesian Perspective (Vol. 60). Aldershot: Elgar Reference Collection, International Library of Critical Writings in Economics.
Grossman, H. (1969). Marx, Classical Political Economy and the Problem of Dynamics. Frankfurt: EVA.
Hecker, R. (2003). Die Entstehungs-, Überlieferungs- und Editionsgeschichte der ökonomischen Manuskripte und des “Kapital”. trend. online-zeitung. http://www.mxks.de/files/mew/Hecker.EntstehungsgeschDKapitals.t281203.html
Keynes, J. M. (1930). Treatise on Money. The Pure Theory of Money and the Applied Theory of Money. London: Macmillan.
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Krätke, M. (2017). Gibt es ein Marx-Engels-Problem? In Kritik der politischen Ökonomie heute (pp. 211–232). Hamburg: VSA.
Lindner, U. (2013). Marx und die Philosophie. Wissenschaftlicher Realismus, ethischer Perfektionismus und kritische Sozialtheorie. Stuttgart: Schmetterling Verlag.
Luxemburg, R. (1951) [1913]. The Accumulation of Capital. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul.
Luxemburg, R. (1972) [1921]. The Accumulation of Capital—An Anti-Critique. In K. Tarbuck & A. Lane (Eds.), Rosa Luxemburg and Nikolai Bukharin: Imperialism and the Accumulation of Capital (pp. 45–50). London: Pengiun.
Luxemburg, R. (2013) [1925]. Introduction to Political Economy. In The Complete Works of Rosa Luxemburg, Vol. I: Economic Writings (pp. 89–300). London: Verso.
Marx, K. (1976). Capital. A Critique of Political Economy (Vol. 1). London: Penguin.
Marx, K. (2006) [1857]. Introduction. In Karl Marx, Texts on Method (C. J. Arthur, Trans and Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merker, N. (1975). Einleitung: Galvano della Volpe als Theoretiker des Marxismus. In Galvano della Volpe: Rousseau und Marx. Beiträge zur Dialektik geschichtlicher Strukturen (pp. 7–33). Darmstadt/Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Messori, M. (1978). Sraffa e la critica dell’economiapolitica dopo Marx. Milan: Franco Angeli.
Messori, M. (1984). Teoria del valore senza merce-moneta? Considerazioni preliminari sull’analisi monetaria di Marx. Quaderni di storia dell'economia politica, II(1–2), 185–232.
Messori, M. (1986). Innovation et profit chez Marx, Schumpeter et Keynes. Cahiers d’économie politique, (10–11), 229–256.
Moseley, F. (2016). Money and Totality. A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the ‘Transformation Problem’. Leiden: Brill.
Napoleoni, C. (1970a). Introduzione: “Su alcuni problemi del marxismo”. In P. Sweezy (Ed.), Teoria del sviluppo capitalistico. Torino: Boringhieri.
Napoleoni, C. (1970b). Smith, Ricardo, Marx. Torino: Boringhieri.
Napoleoni, C. (1972). Lezioni sul capitolo sesto inedito di Marx. Torino: Boringhieri.
Napoleoni, C. (1976). Il Valore. Milan: ISEDI.
Perri, S. (1996a). Sovrappiù, plusvalore e valore della forza-lavoro. In M. Guidi (Ed.), Il terzo libro del ‘Capitale” di K. Marx: 1894–1994 (= Trimestre, XXIX(1–2), 1996).
Perri, S. (1996b). Marx rivisitato: capitale, lavoro, sfruttamento. Trimestre, XXIX(1–2), 29–86.
Perri, S. (1998). Prodotto netto e sovrappiù. Da Smith al marxismo analitico e alla ‘New Interpretation’, Torino.
Preti, D. (2002). Sraffa e il valore-lavoro in Produzione di merci a mezzo di merci. In G. Gatteli. (Ed.), Karl Marx e la trasformazione del pluslavoro in profitto (pp. 31–46). Rome: Mediaprint.
Rubin, I. (1973) [1923]. Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Salanti, A. (1990). La teoria del valore dopo Sraffa. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali, 37(8), 685–692.
Samuelson, P., & M, F. (1966). The Pasinetti Paradox in Neoclassical and More General Models. The Review of Economic Studies, 33(4), 269–301.
Sbardella, R. (2007). ‘Il doppio circolo di Hegel e la dissoluzione di Marx nell'idealismo’ in Bellofiore 2007.
Schumpeter, J. (2000) [1947]. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: Routledge.
Screpanti, E. (2001). The Fundamental Institutions of Capitalism. London: Routledge.
Sraffa, P. (1960). Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steedman, I. (1977). Marx after Sraffa. London: New Left Books.
Turchetto, M. (2007). ‘I “due Marx” e l’althusserismo’ in Bellofiore 2007.
Wolf, F. O. (2004). The “Limits of Dialectical Presentation” as a Key Category of Marx’s Theoretical Self-Reflection. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 15(3), 79–85.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bellofiore, R., Wolf, F.O. (2018). Taking Up the Challenge of Living Labour A ‘Backwards-Looking Reconstruction’ of Recent Italian Debates on Marx’s Theory of the Capitalist Mode of Production. In: Dellheim, J., Wolf, F. (eds) The Unfinished System of Karl Marx. Luxemburg International Studies in Political Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70347-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70347-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70346-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70347-3
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)