Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T08:27:32.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roemer's “General” Theory of Exploitation Is a Special Case: The Limits of Walrasian Marxism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

James Devine  and
Gary Dymski
James Devine
Affiliation:
Loyola Marymount University
Gary Dymski
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a series of recent writings, John Roemer (1982a, 1982b, 1985, 1988) has made a provocative claim: exploitation and class are merely second-order concepts within Marxian theory, because both phenomena derive directly from differential ownership of productive assets (DOPA); indeed, exploitation remains a consistent index of economic injustice only if a “property relations” conception of exploitation replaces the common “labor-value” view. In sum, property relations, not the labor exchange, the labor proces, labor values, or even capitalist accumlation should be the central concern of Marxian theory.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , October 1991 , pp. 235 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, W. H. Locke, and Thompson, Frank W.. 1988. “Neoclassical Marxism.” Science and Society 52(2):215–28.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth. 1959. “Toward a Theory of Price Adjustment.” In The Allocation of Economic Resources, edited by Abramowitz, Moses et al. , pp. 41–51. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1985. Economic Theory in Retrospect, 4th ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boland, Lawrence. 1982. The Foundations of Economic Method. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Bowles, Samuel, and Edwards, Richard. 1985. Understanding Capitalism: Competition, Command, and Change in the U.S. Economy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Bowles, Samuel, and Gintis, Herbert. 1990. “Contested Exchange: New Microfoundations for the Political Economy of Capitalism.” Politics and Society 18(2):165–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Coase, Ronald. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica 4(11):386–405.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1983. “The Structure of Proletariat Unfreedom.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12:3–33.Google Scholar
Devine, James. 1989. “What is ‘Simple Labor’? A Re-Examination of the Value-Creating Capacity of Skilled Labor.” Capital and Class 39(Winter):113–31.Google Scholar
Devine, James. 1990. “The Utility of Value: The ‘New Solution,’ Unequal Exchange, and Crisis.” Research in Political Economy (Paul Zarembka, ed.) 12:21–39.Google Scholar
Devine, James, and Dymski, Gary A.. 1989. “Roemer's Theory of Capitalist Exploitation: The Contradictions of Walrasian Marxism.” Review of Radical Political Economics 21(3):13–17.Google Scholar
Devine, James, and Reich, Michael. 1981. “The Microeconomics of Conflict and Hierarchy in Capitalist Production.” Review of Radical Political Economics 12(4):27–45.Google Scholar
Dymski, Gary A., and Elliott, John E.. 1989. “Should Anyone Be Interested in Exploitation?” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Suppl. Vol. 15:333–74.Google Scholar
Edwards, Richard. 1979. Contested Terrain. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fama, Eugene. 1980. “Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm.” journal of Political Economy 88(2):288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephen J. 1987. An Urchin in the Storm. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Harrod, R. F. 1939. “An Essay in Dynamic Theory.” Economic Journal 49:14–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. C., and Meckling, W.. 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure.” Journal of Financial Economics 3:305–60.Google Scholar
Katz, Lawrence F. 1986. “Efficiency Wage Theories: A Partial Evaluation.” NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1986. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lazonick, William. 1974. “Karl Marx and Enclosures in England.” Review of Radical Political Economics 6(2):1–59.Google Scholar
Lebowitz, Michael A. 1988. “Is ‘Analytical Marxism’ Marxism?” Science and Society 52(2):191–214.Google Scholar
Levine, Andrew, Sober, Elliott, and Wright, Erik Olin. 1987. “Marxism and Methodological Individualism.” New Left Review No. 162, March/April:67–84.Google Scholar
Lewis, W. Arthur. 1958. “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor.” In The Economics of Linderdevelopment, edited by Agarwala, A. N. and Singh, S. P., pp. 400–50. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malinvaud, Edmond. 1980. Profitability and Unemployment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marglin, Stephen. 1974. “What Do Bosses Do? The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production.” Review of Radical Political Economics 6(2):60–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marglin, Stephen. 1984. Growth, Distribution, and Prices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1977. Capital, Vol. 1. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Mayer, Thomas F. 1989–1990. “In Defense of Analytical Marxism.” Science and Society 53(4):416–41.Google Scholar
Pasinetti, Luigi L. 1974. Growth and Income Distribution: Essays in Economic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reiman, Jeffrey. 1987. “Exploitation, Force, and the Moral Assessment of Capitalism: Thoughts on Roemer and Cohen.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 16(1):3–41.Google Scholar
Roemer, John E. 1982a. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class (GT). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roemer, John E. 1982b. “Property Relations versus Surplus Value in Marxian Exploitation.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 11(4):281–313.Google Scholar
Roemer, John E. 1982c. “Methodological Individualism and Analytical Marxism.” Theory and Society 11:513–20.Google Scholar
Roemer, John E. 1985. “Should Marxists Be Interested in Exploitation?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 14:30–65.Google Scholar
Roemer, John E. 1988. Free to Lose (FTL). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A., and Modigliani, Franco. 1966. “The Pasinetti Paradox in Neoclassical and More General Models.” Review of Economic Studies 33:269–301.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1982. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert. 1956. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 70(1):65–94.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph. 1987. “The Causes and Consequences of the Dependence of Quality on Price.” Journal of Economic Literature 25(1):1–49.Google Scholar
Sweezy, Paul. 1970. The Theory of Capitalist Development. New York: Modern Reader.Google Scholar
Weeks, John. 1981. Capital and Exploitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar