Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros26Dossier : Autour de l'institution...Money as a coordinating device of...

Dossier : Autour de l'institutionnalisme monétaire

Money as a coordinating device of a commodity economy: old and new, Russian and French readings of Marx

Part 2. The theory of money without the theory of value
La monnaie comme dispositif de coordination d’une économie marchande décentralisée. Lectures actuelles et anciennes, françaises et russes de Marx.
Partie 2. Théorie monétaire sans théorie de la valeur
La moneda como un dispositivo de coordinación en una economía mercantil descentralizada. Lecturas actuales y antiguas, francesas y rusas de Marx.
Parte 2. Teoría monetaria sin teoría del valor
Nikolay Nenovsky

Résumés

Nous présentons des approches originales pour résoudre le « problème de la coordination » de l’économie 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 (partie 1/Part 1) et Struve-Cartelier (partie 2/Part 2). 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 l’éliminent et la pensent inutile et redondante (à nouveau chacun à sa manière).

Haut de page

Texte intégral

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 (April 2018) and at the Conference on Marx in Tokyo (December 2018). 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.

  • 1 Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value had three editions: 1923, 1924 and 1928. An important comparative (...)

1In this second part of our study of the history of monetary thought, we go on in comparing new French monetary approaches with their Russian predecessors, in their treatment of some of Marx’s achievements regarding this topic. Each of the two French authors mentioned in the first part of this article (Orléan and Cartelier) offer their own solution of “Marx’s problem” (see part 1 for Orléan) and they could be compared to two important Russian economists who worked half a century before them namely Isaak Rubin (1886-1937, see part 1) and Peter Struve (1870-1944). Isaak Rubin was an original Marxist well-known in the West and in France owing to his Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value (the second edition in French dates back to 2009)1, Struve was almost unknown apart from his sociological and historical studies – though he published three theoretical papers in French (Struve, 1921a, 1921b, 1922) and many in German.

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 Marx’s 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 Struve’s 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 Marx’s 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. Struve’s evolution as well as his political biography were featured in detail in Frank (1956) and in Pipes (1970, 1980).

  • 2 See also Frank (1956), Afanasiev (1994), Gnyatuk (1998) as well as the introduction of Savchenko in (...)

4As regards the genuine monetary theory and methodology, Struve’s works are not numerous: he published a book entitled Hozyaistvo i cena/Economy and Price in two volumes (1913 and 1916) and some articles published in Russian, French, German and later in Serbian and Bulgarian (that were published mainly while being in emigration), which are theoretical and original. We shall not dwell on the overall complexity of Struve’s approach set forth in those works nor on the philosophical aspects of methodological principles (for details see Dmitriev, 2006, 2010, 2013; Gloveli, 2014; as well as Nenovsky & Penchev, 2018)2. I will summarize Struve’s approach to the resolution of the coordination problems of the atomized commodity producers and to the comprehension of the role of money in that process. It is noteworthy that despite its specificity, the system of the Russian economist featured parallels and common “theoretical references” with Orléan’s and Cartelier’s models. I consider that there is greater similarity with the latter.

  • 3 Standing out among those “monetary” economists are Dmitriev-Mamontov and Evzlin (1915, 1923, 1924), (...)

5As I have mentioned, the main components of Struve’s theory, on which I will dwell below, followed the ideas and main elements in the book by Rykachev (1910). Rykachev was a close associate of Struve. The basic postulates – among others, the leading role of money and prices as regards value (which is “a phantom”), the role of accounting and statistics, the relation between money and freedom of choice, the criticism of the labour theory of value, the postulate that the labour force cannot be a commodity, the free and controlled prices, etc. – were formulated in Rykachev’s book, that deserves a separate study. Rykachev’s theory, which regrettably has not been the subject of a special analysis, has been recognized by a number of prominent economists supporting the “monetary analysis” (Struve, Yurovsky, Frank, Bazarov, etc.).3

  • 4 Consequently, Struve’s approach to prices and value, to the classification of the economic orders a (...)

6In a nutshell, the basic concepts which illustrate Struve’s model of coordination of the commodity economy are: “money”, “prices”, “statistification/a statistical approach to prices”, “money accounting” and “laws”. For Struve, “value” was not an important category, it was “a metaphysical doubling of the price” and “a logical phantom”. Struve referred to the term “price = value (цена = ценность).4

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.

  • 5 In the sense of οἶκος.

8The second step is to state that the commodity exchange, the economic order, or economic activity (khozaystvovanie)5, as Struve puts it presupposes the existence of “money” and “prices”. According to Struve all attempts at deducing value (including the subjective one) encountered the actual existence of money and prices (prices ≡ value). We shall see that according to Struve value did not have an independent meaning. Hence the following allegation:

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 Struve’s 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 Struve’s economic works and is a manifestation of his methodological dualism (for details see Dmitriev, 2010, 2013 and Gloveli, 2014).

  • 6 Labour theory of value (LTV) is “a specific theory of the ‘substantial’ equilibrium of values” (Str (...)
  • 7 In my view, he accepted those subjective theories and the Austrian theories of value which consider (...)

11Struve is “ruthless” as regards all objective theories (including Marx’s labour theory of value, LTV hereafter) and the so-called subjective theories of value. Most of them consider that value is a substance (Marx)6, while for its part the Austrian school falls into the trap of value, regarded value as a parameter, i. e. in the trap of equilibrium reasoning. Struve considered that value and the law of value (LV hereafter) as equibalanced, equilibrating mechanisms were unacceptable.7

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).

  • 8 According to me the approach to discussing incomes including profit as prices variations brings Str (...)

13And so, money and prices (i. e. prices ≡ values) are the main categories to be mobilised so as to describe and analyse the commodity economy, i. e. the system of interacting commodity economies. These categories are specified by “accounting/book-keeping”, which for its part is inevitably marked by money. With the help of monetary accounting all major problems of the political economy including the problem of income formation and income distribution (i. e. imputation theory), as well as exploitation - can be comprehended and solved. We may note that exploitation, should we refer to exploitation in Struve, is not related to the surplus value as it is in Marx but to the uneven distribution of the private property rights.8 Law and legal relations are the second mechanism which jointly with book-keeping are key to understanding economic processes.

  • 9 Whenever he referred to “value” he interpreted it statistically as “a subjective average” (Struve d (...)

14Fourth, before studying the emergence of book-keeping, it is necessary to clarify its empirical basis. This means to solve the most important issue of prices through which entries will be made. Here we must mention Struve’s original theory which he formulated as a “statistical approach to prices” or “statistification”. The statistical approach under the influence of Struve himself (and of his colleague the renowned Russian statistician Chuprov) became extremely popular among young Russian economists (Yurovsky, 1919). Statistics was fed by “good” accounting which made it possible to analyse incomes. According to Struve, prices and their statistical expression were of major importance for the political economy.9

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 enterprise’s 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 Struve’s model?

15Fifth, Struve did not have a special publication dedicated to money although he often dwelt on that topic. Struve’s 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 [author’s 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. Menger’s approach emphasizes spontaneity, heterogeneity and the function of exchange, whereas Knapp’s approach – rationality, autogeneity and the function of the means of payment. Noteworthy is also the specific interpretation of Knapp’s 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 Cartelier’s monetary networks.

According to Struve Knapp’s theory featured the process of rationalization of monetary affairs. Hence Struve’s 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 t’en 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)

  • 10 See Sobel’s article (2016) where he sets forth a constructivist interpretation of Marx’s theory of (...)

23It is clear that in Struve’s model of the emergence of money, “fluidity” (hodkost) corresponds to the category of “liquidity” in Orléan’s approach. In any case however both authors were influenced by Menger’s approach. In other aspects, Struve comes closer to Orléan by emphasizing the completely conventional, constructivist character of economic relations which can be comprehended through Marx’s theory of fetishism (Struve, 1913/1916, vol. 1, p. 25-26).10 Struve’s general model can be illustrated in Scheme 3.

Scheme 3. Struve’s theoretical model integrating the theory of money

Scheme 3. Struve’s theoretical model integrating the theory of money

Source: author

  • 11 Struve’s monetary approach to economic cycle and to capital is similar to the Mises’s one, and in o (...)

24Despite the theoretical contributions (dualism of money order, links between the monetary functions) we believe that the main original moments in Struve are related above all to the emphasis on the role of money accounting (buhgalteria). Struve’s monetary book-keeping reminds in many respects of the monetary theory of one of the leading contemporary French monetary institutionalists namely Cartelier.11

2. Cartelier’s solution: payments systems and money accounting

  • 12 Almost at the same time, Aglietta and Orléan published their pioneer book La violence de la monnaie(...)

25Cartelier (jointly with Carlo Benetti) is maybe one of the first authors who laid the beginnings of the “monetary analysis” to solving the basic dilemma about the coordination of separated individual commodity producers, i. e. about the possibility of setting forth the social evaluation (validation) of the differentiated, private, individual activities in quantitative terms. This has been done in the book entitled Marchands, salariat et capitalistes (Benetti & Cartelier, 1980).12

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 “Marx’s 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) L’intrus et l’absent (2016), and also the papers presented at the Conference in Lyon dedicated to the 150th anniversary of the release of Marx’s Capital (Cartelier, 2017). Based on the publications above, I summarize Cartelier’s approach (without any claims that this approach cannot be set forth better in a different way).

  • 13 For a detailed analysis of Schumpeter’s monetary approach, see Lakomski-Laguerre (2016). Among the (...)
  • 14 Debreu formulated the main task of his work in a manner that was similar to those of the authors di (...)

27First, following Joseph Schumpeter’s classification (2014 [1929]), Cartelier believes that “the monetary analysis” solves better than the “real” analysis (that of value) the tasks of explaining the coordination of the individual commodity producers.13 Actually, Cartelier rejects the value approach in all its versions (labour, utility, Debreu’s axiomatics, etc.).14 Marx’s labour theory has been considered to be of major influence. It is the author’s starting point and he “has reconstructed it rationally following the spirit of Marxism” (Cartelier, 2017, p. 9). But unlike most of his French colleagues Cartelier considers that while pure economics should develop the theory, categories should be deduced analytically and the economic relations should be measured and quantified.

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)

  • 15 Mosley (1998, 2005) defends Marx versus Cartelier and above all Benetti (1990).

29Second, Cartelier does not accept the value approach and the dual character of labour (i. e. the reduction of concrete and private types of labour to abstract and socially necessary labour). Therefore, according to the French author, Marx’s merit is that he sets forth the problem of the coordination of private and social activities, but on the other hand the solution he proposed to this problem within the frameworks of the labour theory and of measuring by labour – was wrong. Moreover, Marx’s labour theory of value – and not only Marx’s but also Smith’s and Ricardo’s (Cartelier, 2016) – as well as Marx’s LV, were definitely unable to solve logically the coordination problem.15 This is because of the lack of the possibility to measure, co-measure and in general to present the main economic relations in quantitative terms, without resorting to monetary prices and money: “Quantities of labour have to be determined, if not, value and wealth have no meaning at all.” (Cartelier, 2017, p. 3)

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 Marx’s 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”.

  • 16 Criticism of Marx’s theory made by Tugan were the subject of a thorough presentation by Frank (1900 (...)

33For Cartelier, labour is not a substance. The mainstream economic theory reduces it to such a substance (physical or social) in order to make an attempt at its measuring and co-measuring and thus at solving the coordination problem (private/social). That substantiation in all its varieties however leads to a blind alley. The measuring of labour is impossible without wages, i. e. outside the world of money and prices. Cartelier repeatedly refers to the works of Dominique Méda (2008 [2004]) who features the difficulties in interpreting the category of labour, the impossibility to separate labour from its bearer, the individual. In deviating from the main topic, we must mention some of the main criticisms of Marx’s labour theory by the renowned Russian economist Tugan-Baranovsky, stating that man and his economic value are inseparable from the labour act. Subsequently this principle underlays Tugan-Baranovsky’s ethical theory of value in which man is economically defined as the supreme value, ranked higher than utility and value (Nenovsky, 2009; Allisson, 2015)16.

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 Marx’s 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 author’s 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 Marx’s “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)

  • 17 Similar definitions and understanding of money as a payment system of rules can be found unchanged (...)

38The equivalence principle does not hold unless some procedure of settlement of balances is built-in as part of the “money institution”. Balance settlement restore the principle of equivalence in case of disequilibrium (Cartelier, 1991, p. 257)17

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).

  • 18 This is also to be found in the pioneer book (Benetti & Cartelier, 1980, p. 38-40).

40Fourth, the assertions above lead to one of the central elements in Cartelier’s theoretical system: the role of monetary accounting. Accounting (which is always monetary, it can be done neither in labour nor in any other units) is the object of special attention. Cartelier (2006) has dedicated a special article in which he examines the place of accounting in the history of economic thought. Accounting is similar to Struve’s system and it is closely related to legal relations, to law (including property rights) and certainly to fiscal relations18.

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 Marx’s 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 Cartelier’s model has no access to and is detached from the exchange. Therefore, the theory of wages must proceed from this fact of the worker’s 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 L’intrus et l’absent (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 Cartelier’s 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 Cartelier’s approach in the scheme 4 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.

Scheme 4. Cartelier’s model of monetary integration

Scheme 4. Cartelier’s model of monetary integration

Source: author

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])

  • 19 The vulgar economists include such Marxists as Luxemburg, Hilferding and even Bukharin.
  • 20 There are attempts made by certain Marxist historians at reconstructing history from the standpoint (...)

48The truth is that Marx himself failed to solve adequately the basic theoretical problem he formulated. The LV can neither quantitatively nor even qualitatively (despite the numerous efforts of dialectics, of the “theories of the forms of value” and of the “inverted forms”, etc.) explain the behaviour of prices and as a whole the coordination of independent economic activities. In order to overcome those defects, Marxists and economists after Marx embarked on the way back namely that of “vulgarity”19. “Vulgarity” implied that priority was given to exchange rather than to production and that money and prices in most cases were placed before value and the different factors explaining it (such as labour, utility, scarcity etc.).20

  • 21 The leading role attributed to “exchange” in the theoretical system as well as the proposals of ref (...)

49In this paper we have dwelt on four of those “vulgar” and “exchange/monetary” economists, two Russians of the early 20th century (Rubin and Struve) and two contemporary French economists (Orléan and Cartelier). Taken in pairs (Rubin/Orléan and Struve/Cartelier), these scholars represent two trends in solving these limitations. Both trends are related to bringing to the fore the leading role of money in the process of coordination. Money becomes a leading social institution which in a sense subordinates the functioning of the market and of capitalism. All reviewed economists placed “exchange” in the focus of attention which was the key difference as regards orthodox Marxists who considered that production played the leading role.21

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 Orléan’s 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 Rubin’s 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 Hegel’s dialectics. For its part the linking mission in Orléan’s 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. Orléan’s sociological approach is close to that of Girard, Simmel and Durkheim. In both Rubin’s and Orléan’s 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 Marx’s theory. This second variant of the monetary reconstruction of Marx’s theory, which concludes to the denial of the need of the LTV and of the LV, can be found in Struve’s publications as well as in the works of Cartelier (part 2). 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 Struve’s 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 Cartelier’s 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 today’s digital age. This challenges the basis of the mainstream economics which is still dominated by the real” analysis, according to Schumpeter’s terms.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Please find the bibliography in Cyrillic here.

In Latin

AFEP [Association Française d’Économie Politique] (2017), Légion d’honneur d’André Orléan, 4 octobre 2017, EHESS, Paris (intervention de M. Aglietta, R. Boyer, J.-P. Dupuy et F. Jany-Catrice), site AFEP : http://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. L’Expérience des États-Unis, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, coll. « Perspective de l’économique/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 d’Économie 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, 16 January 2018.

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

Aucuy M. (1908), Les systèmes socialistes d’échange, Avant-propos de M. A. Deschamps, Paris, Felix-Alcan Éditeur.

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

Bellofiore R., Cohen D., Durand C. & 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, nos 1-2, p. 1-25. DOI: https://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 Ülgen F 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 Marx’s extended reproduction schemes », The European Journal of History of Economic Thought, vol. 25 no 5, p. 986-1021. DOI: https://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 Marx’s reproduction model », in Ülgen F 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 l’argent, 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, no 3, p. 363-386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837215000413 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Boldyrev I. (2012), « On Rubin’s interpretation of Marx’s theory of money », in Rubin I. (2012), Isaak Il’jic 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), L’offre de la monnaie. Critique d’un concept, Paris, F. Maspéro, coll. « Économie et socialisme ».

Brunhoff S. de (1979), Les rapports d’argent, 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), « Marx’s theory of value, exchange and surplus value: a suggested reformulation », Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 15, no 3, p. 257-269. DOI : https://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, no 5, p. 1009-1032. DOI : https://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 Ülgen F 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), L’intrus et l’absent. Essaie sur le travail et le salariat dans la théorie économique, Paris, Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest. Site: https://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 Marx’s commodity theory », Lyon, Conference on Marx organised by Triangle and the European Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Site: https://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 l’économie politique du socialisme (essai d’histoire critique 1917 – 1954), Grenoble, Université des sciences sociales de Grenoble.

Cohen G. (2001) [1978], Karl Marx’s 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, no 1, p. 133-149. DOI: https://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 Ülgen F 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, Cohen D., Durand C. & 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 Steedman I. & 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 [1re edition 2014].

Dostaler G. (1978), Valeur et prix : histoire d’un débat, Grenoble/Montréal/Paris, Presses universitaires de Grenoble/Presses de l’Université du Québec/F. Maspero, coll. « Intervention en économie politique ».

Duménil G. (2009), « Économie » in Duménil G., Löwy M. & E. Renault (dir.), Lire Marx, Paris, Puf, coll. « Quadriges », p. 193-284.

Ellul J. (2003) [1947/1979], La pensée marxiste. Cours professé l’Institut d’études 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), L’échange 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 », L’Homme et la société, nos 67-68, p. 153-177.

Fondu G. (2017), « En deçà du problème-Marx », [À propos de l’ouvrage de Fred Moseley, Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the end of the Transformation Problem], Revue de la régulation [En ligne], no 21 | 1er semestre/Spring, p. 1-6. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/regulation/12291 [consulté le 31 janvier 2020]

Harribey J.-M. (2011), « La valeur, ni surplomb, ni hors-sol » [À propos de l’ouvrage d’André Orléan, L’empire de ka valeur. Refonder l’économie], Revue de la régulation [En ligne], no 10 | 2e semestre/Autumn, p. 1-13. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/regulation/9483 [consulté le 31 janvier 2020]

Harribey J.-M. (2013), La richesse, la valeur et l’inestimable. Fondements d’une critique socio-écologique de l’économie 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, nos 2-3, p. 215-242. DOI: https://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, no 1, p. 87-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/24.1.87 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Hong H. (2002), « Marx’s value forms and Hayek’s rules: a reinterpretation in the light of the dichotomy between physis and nomos », Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 26, no 5, p. 613-635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/26.5.613 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Ishikura M. (2018), « Marx’s 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), « Marx’s Value Theory and the transformation Problem revisited – Commenting on Fred Moseley’s 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 Fine B. & 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, no 2, p. 232-251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.1997.2357 [accessed 31 January 2020]

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

Kuruma S. & M. Schauerte (des) (2018), Marx’s Theory of the Genesis of Money. How, Why, and Through What is a Commodity Money?, , Chicago IL., Haylarked Books.

Lakomski-Laguerre O. (2016), « Joseph Schumpeter’s Credit View of Money: A Contribution to a “Monetary Analysis” of Capitalism », History of Political Economy, vol. 48, no 3, p. 489-514. DOI: https://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 Marx’s theory of value, Copenhagen, Rhodos International Science and Art Publishers.

Lipietz A. (1983), Le monde enchanté : de la valeur à l’envol inflationniste, Paris, F. Maspero, coll. « Économie et socialisme ».

Lordon F. & A. Orléan (2007), « Genèse de l’État et de la monnaie : le modèle de la potentia multitudinis », Revue du MAUSS permanente, 29 avril 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 Marx’s monetary economics », The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 3, no 1, p. 61-83. DOI: https://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], no 12 | 2e semestre.

Moseley F. (1998), A critique of Benetti’s critique of Marx’s derivation of the necessity of money, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/working%20papers/BENETTI.pdf

Moseley F. (2005), Marx’s Theory of Money. Modern Appraisals, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Moseley F. (2016), Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the end of the « Transformation Problem », Leiden/Boston, Brill.

Moseley F. (2017a), « Money and totality: a macro-monetary interpretation of Marx’s logic in Capital and the end of the “transformation problem” », International Journal of Political Economy, vol. 46, no 1, p. 2-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08911916.2017.1310469 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Moseley F. (2017b), « Reply », International Journal of Political Economy, vol. 46, no 1, p. 43-49. DOI: https://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), Marx’s Concept of Money, New York, Routledge.

Nenovsky N. (2009), « Place of labor and labor theory in Tugan Baranovsky’s theoretical system », The Kyoto Economic Review, vol. 78, no 1, 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-Baranovsky’s Monetary Theory », paper presented at the Conference « Les économistes et la première guerre mondiale », 22-23 novembre 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, no 3, p. 11-40. DOI: 10.19272/201706103001 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Nenovsky N. & D. Torre (2015), « Productivity-based protectionism: a Marxian reconstruction of Mihail Manoilescu’s theory », Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 49, no 3, p. 772-786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2015.1072388 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Okada M. (2014), « A reassessment of Marx’s thought on labour exchange », Review of Political Economy, vol. 26, no 3, p. 408-425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2014.923592 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Orléan A. (2011a), L’empire de la valeur. Refonder l’économie, Paris, Le Seuil, coll. « La couleur des idées ».

Orléan A. (2011b), « Réponse à Jean-Marie Harribey », Revue de la régulation [En ligne], no 10 | 2e semestre/Autumn. URL : http://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], no 14 | 2e semestre/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 [1re édition 2013].

Orléan A. (2017), « Réflexions sur la théorie marxiste de la monnaie », in Colliot-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., Cohen D., Durand C. & 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, no 6, 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, no 3, p. 446-475.

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

Rosdolsky R. (1977) [1968], The Making of Marx’s 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 Il’jic 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 l’Amérique latine. Essai sur les limites de l’accumulation nationale du capital dans les économies semis-industrialisées, Paris, F. Maspero, coll. « Livres critiques de l’économie politique ».

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

Salama P. & T. HaiHac (1992), Introduction à l’économie de Marx, Paris, La Découverte, coll. « Repères ».

Shaikh A. (1981), « The poverty of algebra » in Steedman I. & 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, no 1, p. 165-199. DOI: https://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, no 720, Universita di Siena.

Sobel R. (2016), « Fétichisme de la marchandise et ontologie sociale chez Marx. Interprétation essentialiste versus interprétation constructiviste », Cahier d’économie Politique, vol. 70, no 1, 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 Giacomin A. & 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” nell’Impero russo », Studi Storici, vol. 42, no 3, p. 673-736. URL: www.jstor.org/stable/41057579 [accessed 31 January 2020]

Steedman I. (1981) [1979], « Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa » in Steedman I. & 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), « L’idée de loi naturelle dans la science économique », Revue d’économie politique, vol. 35, no 3, p. 294-317. URL : www.jstor.org/stable/24683536 [consulté le 31 janvier 2020]

Struve P. (1921b), « L’idée de loi naturelle dans la science économique », Revue d’économie politique, vol. 35, no 4, p. 463-477. URL : www.jstor.org/stable/24683565 [consulté le 31 janvier 2020]

Struve P. (1922), « Prix-valeur. Énoncés fondamentaux », Revue d’économie politique, vol. 36, no 2, p. 181-196. URL : www.jstor.org/stable/24683700 [consulté le 31 janvier 2020]

Struve P. (1934), « My contacts and conflicts with Lenin », The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 12, no 36, p. 573-595, and vol. 13, no 37, p. 66-84.

Struve P. (1936/1937), « Gegenstandstheoretische grundlagen der wirtschaftswissenschaft und deren methodische konsequenzen », Proceedings of the Statistical Institute for Economic Research, Sofia, no 4, p. 5-32.

Struve P. (1937), « Kinjunktur als wirtschaftstheoretisches Problem », Proceedings of the Statistical Institute for Economic Research, Sofia, no 1, 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 Marx’s Theory of Money of I. I. Rubin, https://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, no 4, p. 813‑841.

Théret B. (2009), « Monnaie et dettes de vie », L’Homme, vol. 2, no 190, p. 153‑179.

Wiles P.J.D. (1962), The Political Economy of Communism, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

Ülgen F. (2013), « Coordination in economy. An essay on money » in Ülgen F 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., Yokokawa N., Hagiwara Sh. & 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.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value had three editions: 1923, 1924 and 1928. An important comparative analysis of those versions has been accomplished by Takenaga (2017a). Orléan (2018) reaffirmed his positions on Rubin. See the important research on Rubin as a historian of economic thought in Boldyrev and Kragh (2015), and documents on Rubin in Rubin (2012).

2 See also Frank (1956), Afanasiev (1994), Gnyatuk (1998) as well as the introduction of Savchenko in Struve (2016) [1913/1934], p. 9-28. Struve’s method was set forth extremely succinctly and exhaustively in his lecture read in German in Sofia (Struve, 1936/1937). The political biography of Struve in Pipes’s two volumes is the best written so far (Pipes, 1970, 1980).

3 Standing out among those “monetary” economists are Dmitriev-Mamontov and Evzlin (1915, 1923, 1924), Mendelson (1922a) and particularly Kapelyush (1925b) which included a partial review and an orthodox Marxist criticism of the “monetary approaches without value”. To this effect see also Kozlov (1946). Struve and his followers were greatly influenced by another book – Geld und Wert: eine logische Studie –, written by the Japanese economist K. Soda (1881-1927), one of the pioneers of “monetary analysis”.

4 Consequently, Struve’s approach to prices and value, to the classification of the economic orders and the terminology itself became extremely popular not only among the Russian economists and Struve’s disciples abroad (see here Nenovsky & Penchev, 2018), but also among those who remained in Soviet Russia.

5 In the sense of οἶκος.

6 Labour theory of value (LTV) is “a specific theory of the ‘substantial’ equilibrium of values” (Struve, 2007a [1923], p. 464). In Struve’s view, Marx’s LTV is a direct and “impressive analogy” of the scholastic teaching of the original sin. “The way it is in Marx the empirical ‘price’ is managed by the law of value (LV) so to say it borrows its existence from the substance of value the way people’s empirical actions according to scholastics are determined by the original sin” (Struve, 1913/1916, vol. 1, p. XXVI). We shall only stress that the above-mentioned analogy was developed much more extensively (as Marxism – “Religion”) by the great Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski (1976/1978).

7 In my view, he accepted those subjective theories and the Austrian theories of value which consider it to be a psychic process rather than a parameter (Liefmann for instance).

8 According to me the approach to discussing incomes including profit as prices variations brings Struve closer to the Austrian school.

9 Whenever he referred to “value” he interpreted it statistically as “a subjective average” (Struve did not consider that value had any objective foundations) and that average had statistically been regarded as “a statistical trend” (similar to the Keynesian beauty contest and to the mimetic formation of value in Orléan).

10 See Sobel’s article (2016) where he sets forth a constructivist interpretation of Marx’s theory of fetishism.

11 Struve’s monetary approach to economic cycle and to capital is similar to the Mises’s one, and in our view was built before Mises. Struve is critical to Böhm-Bawerk’s “real interpretations”, that underscored monetary calculation and accounting (Lewin & Cachanosky, 2019).

12 Almost at the same time, Aglietta and Orléan published their pioneer book La violence de la monnaie (1982), already mentioned. It is worthwhile to note here the review of literature on transformation performed by Cartelier and Benetti back in 1975 jointly with Berthomieu (Benetti, Cartelier & Berthomieu, 1975). See also Benetti (1975, 1990).

13 For a detailed analysis of Schumpeter’s monetary approach, see Lakomski-Laguerre (2016). Among the economists who shared the monetary analysis be they Marxists or not we must mention Mehring, Heinrich, Milios, Moseley, Shaikh, etc. There are also many authors who considered that the theory of value was redundant in Marx’s model. Some of Marx’s achievements including the one about the existence of the surplus product can be derived without the mediation of the labour theory of value that is directly from the physical commodity flows (that was what Sraffa actually did). See Cohen, Steedman, Maek, etc. Those Marxists were referred to as “algebraic” and were criticized by Shaikh (1981).

14 Debreu formulated the main task of his work in a manner that was similar to those of the authors discussed by us whereby he emphasized explicitly that his analysis of value would be in “real” (rather than in monetary) terms (Debreu, 1959, p. ix).

15 Mosley (1998, 2005) defends Marx versus Cartelier and above all Benetti (1990).

16 Criticism of Marx’s theory made by Tugan were the subject of a thorough presentation by Frank (1900).

17 Similar definitions and understanding of money as a payment system of rules can be found unchanged over years in Cartelier’s work (1996, p. 74-77; 2006, p. 1016; 2016; 2017, p. 9).

18 This is also to be found in the pioneer book (Benetti & Cartelier, 1980, p. 38-40).

19 The vulgar economists include such Marxists as Luxemburg, Hilferding and even Bukharin.

20 There are attempts made by certain Marxist historians at reconstructing history from the standpoint of exchange rather than from the standpoint of production (among other, see Karatani, 2014).

21 The leading role attributed to “exchange” in the theoretical system as well as the proposals of reforms of exchange was considered by Marx and by orthodox Marxists as the main defect and sign of “vulgarity” (cf. for instance the analyses of the projects of reforms of exchange and of monetary circulation set forth in two interesting books (Auсuy, 1908; Аtlas, 1969). Curiously, the four economists analysed in this text have much closer views on the role of exchange to Marx’s “intellectual enemy” Proudhon.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Scheme 3. Struve’s theoretical model integrating the theory of money
Crédits Source: author
URL http://journals.openedition.org/regulation/docannexe/image/15991/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 32k
Titre Scheme 4. Cartelier’s model of monetary integration
Crédits Source: author
URL http://journals.openedition.org/regulation/docannexe/image/15991/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 39k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Nikolay Nenovsky, « Money as a coordinating device of a commodity economy: old and new, Russian and French readings of Marx »Revue de la régulation [En ligne], 26 | 2nd semestre / Autumn 2019, mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2020, consulté le 18 avril 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/regulation/15991 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/regulation.15991

Haut de page

Auteur

Nikolay Nenovsky

Professor of economics, CRIISEA, university of Picardie Jules Verne and associated researcher at National Research University Higher School of Economics; nenovsky@gmail.com

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search