What do you think?
Rate this book
The Raya Dunayevskaya Series in Marxism and Humanism
Reivindicando El Capital de Marx: Una refutación del mito de su incoherencia
Los críticos de Marx, durante más de un siglo, han proclamado la existencia de contradicciones internas en las teorías del valor, la ganancia y en diversas críticas económicas contenidas en El capital. El presente libro, basándose en trabajos que comenzaron a principios de los ochenta, pone en tela de juicio y refuta esas acusaciones. Al hacerlo, elimina la excusa principal que permite descalificar las teorías de Marx en su forma original, y permite rechazar las diversas tentativas de “corregirlo”, fragmentarlo o subsumirlo en una u otra escuela económica. Esta obra demuestra, pues, la inexistencia de contradicciones lógicas internas al formular una interpretación de las teorías de Marx plena de sentido y coherencia. ANDREW KLIMAN es economista e imparte docencia en la Universidad de Pace. Autor de 'Reivindicando El capital de Marx', donde defiende la coherencia de la teoría del valor de Marx, ha publicado también 'The Failure of capitalist production. The Underlying causes of the Great Recession [El fracaso de la producción capitalista, las causas subyacentes de la Gran Recesión]', texto en el que debate sobre la crisis con las principales interpretaciones marxistas actuales.
320 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2006
8 people are currently reading
531 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 19, 2013
As I wrote in my review of Kliman’s other book (The Failure of Capitalist Production, which also deserves 5 stars), Kliman first came to my attention as someone who had addressed two long-term historical issues within Marxists economics. Most Marxists accept a lot of Marx’s theories of capitalism, as outlined in Capital Vol I-III, but even the adherents recognized two potential fatal flaws in Marx’s system. In no particular order, one is the transformation problem (TP), that is, the problem of explaining the transformation relationship between prices and value. Apparently Marx failed at this in Chapter 9 of Capital Vol III, which renders most of his system internally inconsistent. The second is the Law of the Tendential Rate of Profit to Fall (LTRPF). Marx claimed that surplus value derives from exploiting productive workers, and that particular firms tend to increase productivity and cut costs by laying off labor and replacing them with machines. At first this is advantageous for the capitalists, because his product is still valued at the socially necessary labor time required to make it, albeit for him there is far less labor costs than his competitors. Once all areas of an industry adopt the first industries cost cutting measures, and labor is severely reduced, then the source of surplus value is axed, and profit must fall. There are several measures by which capitalists tend to offset this trend though. Nonetheless, a Japanese Economist named Okishio showed that Marx’s LTRPF was false. He showed that it was possible to lay off labor and raise profit.
Kliman’s book serves to rescue Marx from both of these potentially devastating challenges to his theory. A friend of mine informed me that Kliman’s title is too polemical, and suggested the following: “Concerning an Alleged Inconsistency in Marx's Capital.” This is a good title too, but if Kliman is right about the degree to which the answer to these supposed problems has been suppressed and/or ignored, then the polemical title is justified too.
Kliman’s primary thesis is that, like any author, Marx can be interpreted in many ways. Any passage, chapter, or entire book, can radiate different meanings to different readers. This is a problem that philosophers have finally begun to recognize and have started adopting hermeneutical theories of how best to read a text. Kliman, invoking the principle of charity, suggest that if an interpretation exist that renders a text INTERNALLY consistent (coherent), without resorting to subterfuge or blatant quote machinations, then that interpretation ought to be preferred to one that renders a text internally inconsistent (incoherent). In philosophy this principle is commonplace, perhaps in economics and other fields of academia, it is not. But if one is a Marxist and wants to give Marx the best possible reading, then the principle of charity is mandatory….(of course it should be mandatory even if you aren’t a Marxist and despise Marx)
A little over a hundred years ago, a few economist, specifically von Borkiewicz, made the claim that Marx’s theory was internally inconsistent. Sweezy adopted Borkiewicz’s criticism, and hence forth Marx’s Capital has needed serious amendments, and editing. By the 70’s scholars started to refer to Marx’s inconsistency in footnotes, and nonchalantly, without ever citing the initial sources and reasons for these claims. There’s a good chapter on the history of this issue in Kliman’s book, and historical references are made throughout the book. Kliman really seems to have studied the history of this debate in detail.
In dealing with these alleged claims of inconsistency, Kliman points to several economic models that deal with pricing of inputs and outputs in the production process, that lead to Marx’s inconsistency; especially in relation to TP and LTRPF. The major problem with these theories is that they presume that Marx wanted input costs and output costs to be the same (simultaneous). But if one reads Marx as pricing inputs and outputs temporally, these economic models come out consistent and coherent. And this reading is not some abstruse reading, requiring genuflecting, and ambiguous quote mining; instead Kliman demonstrates that this reading is entirely consistent from Marx’s 1861-63 notebooks, all the way through all three volumes of Capital. If one adopts the principle of charity, then we have two ways of reading Marx, inconsistently, or consistently, over the same quotes. And if one is true to the principle of charity, one must choose consistency.
The other issue, which goes a bit over my head, deals with Marx’s price-value system. One can view price-value as distinct, parts of a dual system, or parts of a single-system. All readings are possible. Again, adopting the principle of charity, the single-system makes applying Marx’s economic theories consistent.
Once temporal pricing and a single system are adopted (TSSI: Temporal Single System Interpretation), the issues raised by Okishio and those who see a transformation problem, are no longer issues. Marx’s solutions are consistent and coherent. Kliman demonstrates theses points over and over again, employing rigorous logic and economic models, where he algebraically works out the issues at hand, showing mathematically, and logically, Marx is consistent.
Of course, someone reading this might have a suspicion that Kliman might be doing some Stalinist revisionism and whitewashing history to justify everything Marx every said. But Kliman is clear from the introduction onward that making Marx internally consistent does not mean that his system as a whole is actually applicable to the real world, and therefore true. Marx’s theories can be made VALID (consistent), but proving that his system is SOUND (that his theory is actually true) is not the goal of this book. Kliman’s main goal is to ensure that from here forward, economist stop referring to Marx as internally inconsistent, and suffering from problems he does not suffer from. Even bourgeois economist can do this, without thinking Marx’s argument are sound, only valid; especially if they adopt the principle of charity.
Kliman’s other book actually applies Marx’s theories to the recent crisis, and makes them seem ostensibly sound, but again, that’s not the point of THIS book.
I would not recommend this book to anyone who has never read Marx. It is not an introduction to his theories. This book is intended for those who have heard of Marx’s inconsistencies, and are capable of grappling with Kliman’s refutations (i.e., people with some economic background, or at least some level of understanding of Marx’s texts).
Having twice given Kliman 5 stars, I look forward to his third book – whatever that may be. His logic is always brutally clear and consistent, and his style of argument leads little to no room for doubt. One does not have to be a Marxist or Marxists economist, to hence forth KNOW that a coherent reading of Marx exists, and ought to be espoused if one wants to retain some level of academic integrity.
Kliman’s book serves to rescue Marx from both of these potentially devastating challenges to his theory. A friend of mine informed me that Kliman’s title is too polemical, and suggested the following: “Concerning an Alleged Inconsistency in Marx's Capital.” This is a good title too, but if Kliman is right about the degree to which the answer to these supposed problems has been suppressed and/or ignored, then the polemical title is justified too.
Kliman’s primary thesis is that, like any author, Marx can be interpreted in many ways. Any passage, chapter, or entire book, can radiate different meanings to different readers. This is a problem that philosophers have finally begun to recognize and have started adopting hermeneutical theories of how best to read a text. Kliman, invoking the principle of charity, suggest that if an interpretation exist that renders a text INTERNALLY consistent (coherent), without resorting to subterfuge or blatant quote machinations, then that interpretation ought to be preferred to one that renders a text internally inconsistent (incoherent). In philosophy this principle is commonplace, perhaps in economics and other fields of academia, it is not. But if one is a Marxist and wants to give Marx the best possible reading, then the principle of charity is mandatory….(of course it should be mandatory even if you aren’t a Marxist and despise Marx)
A little over a hundred years ago, a few economist, specifically von Borkiewicz, made the claim that Marx’s theory was internally inconsistent. Sweezy adopted Borkiewicz’s criticism, and hence forth Marx’s Capital has needed serious amendments, and editing. By the 70’s scholars started to refer to Marx’s inconsistency in footnotes, and nonchalantly, without ever citing the initial sources and reasons for these claims. There’s a good chapter on the history of this issue in Kliman’s book, and historical references are made throughout the book. Kliman really seems to have studied the history of this debate in detail.
In dealing with these alleged claims of inconsistency, Kliman points to several economic models that deal with pricing of inputs and outputs in the production process, that lead to Marx’s inconsistency; especially in relation to TP and LTRPF. The major problem with these theories is that they presume that Marx wanted input costs and output costs to be the same (simultaneous). But if one reads Marx as pricing inputs and outputs temporally, these economic models come out consistent and coherent. And this reading is not some abstruse reading, requiring genuflecting, and ambiguous quote mining; instead Kliman demonstrates that this reading is entirely consistent from Marx’s 1861-63 notebooks, all the way through all three volumes of Capital. If one adopts the principle of charity, then we have two ways of reading Marx, inconsistently, or consistently, over the same quotes. And if one is true to the principle of charity, one must choose consistency.
The other issue, which goes a bit over my head, deals with Marx’s price-value system. One can view price-value as distinct, parts of a dual system, or parts of a single-system. All readings are possible. Again, adopting the principle of charity, the single-system makes applying Marx’s economic theories consistent.
Once temporal pricing and a single system are adopted (TSSI: Temporal Single System Interpretation), the issues raised by Okishio and those who see a transformation problem, are no longer issues. Marx’s solutions are consistent and coherent. Kliman demonstrates theses points over and over again, employing rigorous logic and economic models, where he algebraically works out the issues at hand, showing mathematically, and logically, Marx is consistent.
Of course, someone reading this might have a suspicion that Kliman might be doing some Stalinist revisionism and whitewashing history to justify everything Marx every said. But Kliman is clear from the introduction onward that making Marx internally consistent does not mean that his system as a whole is actually applicable to the real world, and therefore true. Marx’s theories can be made VALID (consistent), but proving that his system is SOUND (that his theory is actually true) is not the goal of this book. Kliman’s main goal is to ensure that from here forward, economist stop referring to Marx as internally inconsistent, and suffering from problems he does not suffer from. Even bourgeois economist can do this, without thinking Marx’s argument are sound, only valid; especially if they adopt the principle of charity.
Kliman’s other book actually applies Marx’s theories to the recent crisis, and makes them seem ostensibly sound, but again, that’s not the point of THIS book.
I would not recommend this book to anyone who has never read Marx. It is not an introduction to his theories. This book is intended for those who have heard of Marx’s inconsistencies, and are capable of grappling with Kliman’s refutations (i.e., people with some economic background, or at least some level of understanding of Marx’s texts).
Having twice given Kliman 5 stars, I look forward to his third book – whatever that may be. His logic is always brutally clear and consistent, and his style of argument leads little to no room for doubt. One does not have to be a Marxist or Marxists economist, to hence forth KNOW that a coherent reading of Marx exists, and ought to be espoused if one wants to retain some level of academic integrity.
June 20, 2017
This is an incredibly important book for those interested in heterodox economics -- an unusually important book -- that aims to overturn the past 40 years of post-Marxian hegemony within the so-called field of Marxian economics. The book does not dodge rigor and clarity by improperly appealing to dialectics or some type of alternative epistemology, as defenses of these theories tend towards. Rather, Kliman's argumentation consists mainly of economic models to establish that Marx's law of value and law of the tendency for profits to fall (two concepts with far-reaching implications that one should be familiar with before reading) are logically valid and still viable. A more controversial but seemingly well-founded claim is made that Marx's economics are being suppressed within the discipline that bears his name; Kliman supports this by appealing to reasonable norms of textual interpretation. Recommended to intermediate students of Marxian economics who have a grasp of the basics and want to understand what historically has been, and what will soon be again, the central debate within the discipline.
April 25, 2025
Probablemente de los libros más áridos y difíciles que he leído sobre Marx y la crítica de la economía política. Probablemente, el hecho de habérmelo metido entre pecho y espalda en poco más de 24h no ayuda. Pero, al mismo tiempo, ha sido de las lecturas más provechosas, ya que aborda problemas tan difíciles como el de la LTDTG o la transformación de valores en precios. Sin duda alguna lo recomiendo para aquellos que tengais más bagaje, porque ayuda a comprender aspectos realmente espinosos.
November 6, 2022
Excellent critique to the supposed "critiques" of Marx: from Okishio to other not some known authors, Kliman illustrates how most of the different "analysis" of Marx theory of value are propaganda against him.
That said, Kliman, while being a good economist, has poor lecture of politics: he claims that the Soviet Union and East Germany were capitalist.
As always, let's tread with political caution.
That said, Kliman, while being a good economist, has poor lecture of politics: he claims that the Soviet Union and East Germany were capitalist.
As always, let's tread with political caution.
January 17, 2019
Super complex book, but I think it proves it's thesis: that Marx was not inconsistent and that the TSSI interpretation of the Labor Theory of Value is correct.
April 16, 2020
God's prophet was right, this preacher is here with his sermons to prove it to you.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews