J 1 r'I. V':;I) PUIlIl'l.

dl PVIIlU':: dl
economist
Rosa Luxemburg' s theory of wages
Michael R Krlilke
Teaching Marxist politi cal economy
Rosa Luxemburg considered Ihe problem of wages onl y once, not in her OpllS
IIInglllllll, Tile ACC/l llllllnlioll o/Capilal (Luxemburg 19 t 3), but in the lectures she
g<l\'e allhe pany school of lhe Gemtan Social Dcmocr.alie pany. Every half-year,
from Oetober 1907 onwards, she taught ,I course on politiC<l1 economy four
IL week. The arrangement lasted mull summer 1914, Her focus was Oil economic
history and the theory of political economy: in panicul ar. she expounded the
main tenets of Marx's critique of politie;J1 ttonomy, In her lI iew, as exprcsscrl
many times in her corrcspondenee. onc could not uuderstand economic history
wilhout underslanding economic theory and \lice \lersa. The eminent scholars of
Ihe Genn.1n histonC<l1 school. Ihe economic historians, lacked thcoreti enl tmining
and insight as much as the votaries of pure theory of 'ecooomics' lacked his-
tOO1:'.I1 kllOwledge, both sides opposing each other in a miller sterile dC:ldlock,
Luxemburg was. according to many of her pupils. a demmlding teacher and. 10
her surprise. 11 highly successful onc. much respected and adored by her students,
many of whom became top functionaries of the Gennan sociali st panics ,md/or
Ihe tmde unions in laler years.'
The publicat ion ofhcr leClUres on political economy was planned liS a seri es
of eight booklets. In the summcr of 1909. she staned working on the m,ulUscript.
II was wri tt cn as a textbook, in 1I1ligll ly popular style, mc.1llt for a large
audicnce! of 'i ntclli ge! nt WOrking men' (and women), as Luxemburg plll il' [n
Febntary 1910. Luxemburg had finished the tCXI for the first two booklets - ' Whal
is polil ical economy?' and 'Social labour' ; the texl for the subsequellt booklets
would have 10 be revised. Her opus II/agllllll/ was in f;Jct an olTshoot of this work
on Ibe llIIrodllClioll 10 l'oll,;c(l1 C0l101II)' (l.uxemburg. 1925), In 1910, working
on Ihc clmptCf 011 the world economy aud imperialism, she became aware ofsolllc
unsolved problcms in Marx's wlfini shcd analysis of the accumulation process.
Whm begun as au eITon to popularize;l highly complex pan of Ml1Ix's theory of
capitalist dcvelopmelll cJUluged into a research projcct: 10 find and to correct whll!
was wrong in Marx's presentation of the logic of !lIe reproduction and IIccumula-
tion of lotal capilnl. In Janumy 19 12. Luxemburg decided to write :t whole book
on imperialism - inSlead of just a ehaplCf or a booklet for JlllrodllCllol/ 10 Po/Weal
lUll le f\NJ/l(e
Ecol/omy - and [0 publish both her criticism of Man's unfini shed lableaux
deol/omit/lles and the solu[ions she proposed for the gaps and unsol ved problems
she had detCelf .. "d there (L.'lsehitlil, 2000; 411 ). Onc yeM Imer, in January the
book was actually published.
Onl y pans and fragmenls of the manuscripts wrillen for /1II/Y}{/IIClioll 10
Polilical rCQl/oIIIY. llboUl 500 p:lges in tOlal. have survh'ed. ll11l0ng Ihem the
p,1n de:lling with Lvlll/Mbc'if (wage labour), which comprises a longer section
on Ihe Iheor)' of wages. In 1916-17. when in jail. she was able to rework Ihe
manuscripe, Slill hoping to publish ie. Whcn U,e manuscript was rediscovered aOcr
her unt imely death. large and imponant pans. including the chapters or booklcls
dealing with thc theory of value. with capilal and profit. and with Il,c theory and
history oferiscs respectively, were mi ssing. Even1uall y, Paul Levi, her lawyer and
friend. published what h.1d been Sowed oflhe m,,1nuscripts in 1925. ' In his prcCace.
he praised it highl y as the first sketch ofa 'comprehensi ve Marxist cultural and
economic hi story' (Levi, 1925: VIII . persormllr.lnslmion). n te 10ngesI ehaplers
of the frngmellt.1ry manuscript are devoted to an olltline of economic history.
including a chapler on lhe hislory of commodi ly produclioll and exchallgc. Only
the chaptcr on wage labour deals with some of lhe "l aws' of modem capil ali sm.
especially with lhe 'Iaws' niling the level and development of wages.
Mlln's cri tiq ne of the dassirttl theory of wnges
In 1875, cOllunenting upon the draft for thc Gotha progrJllllUc. Mm'lt rt'alized
Ihat. evell mnong hi s followers in Ihe Gcnllau movcmcnt. nobody h:ld
understood his Illoory of wages, onc of his crucial new contribUlions 10 political
cconomy. Nobody had gmsped his conccpt of thc 'wage fonn ' or the imponallce
of il - Ih:t! wages arc 1101 whm the), seem to be. thc "valuc' or ' pricc of htbour'.
but mther a disguised fom, (or the 'v31ue of I"bour power' (MEW. 19: 25).'
Accordingly. nobody had understood Ihe complexity of his thcory of wages.
Tackling Il,e core problem of Ihe ncw science ofpolitic;11 economy, the distri-
bution of the wealth ofnntions betwccn the basic cconomic classes ofbollrgeois
society, the classicislS spent consider.lble effon on Ihe expl:U1:uion of the origins
of profit, of iruerest and of ground rcUl S in panieular. As 10 wages, Ihey agreed
upon a gencrnl idea; wages were a price belonging 10 a special commodity, and
as with any othcr commodity" its m,nkct prices would osdllalc around :1 CCnlrt'.
a ' natuml price' . Polilical economy had 10 dctenninc the ' nalurnl rnte' of wag cs
- simi lar 10 Ihe 'J),'llllrnl mtes' of profit. of imeTcs!. or of rem (Wem,e!. 1939).
According 10 the physiocrnts, the level of the minimum or 'subsislence wage' \\-olS
the 'nal urn]' onc.
Ricardo had shifted away from this doctrine and developed tI,e concept of the
relalive wagf', Not n,lIurt' , but history :md society. changing customs lmd llitbils.
delenllined Ille 'nonn,1]' level of wages. But his insighls \\'ere oUSled from tile
cemre of political economic orthodoxy as the r..lahllUsian labour fund dOClrine
won the duy from thc early 18205 onwards (Vinl. 1994: Lapidcs. It pro-
vided an apparently sciemific c.'lSC against tmde unionism. some son of ultimate
A I'ery poli I iC{/1 poli liCfl/ e C0l10111 i sI l6l
proof Ihal working-class organi..:alions and collective aClions were bound 10 fail
in a futile stmggle against a universal and 'natural law'.
In the I 860s, the "labour fund ' doctrine came under 31tack. John Stuan Mill
had professed his doubts about the doctrine, allowing for alternative explanations
for the levels of and changes in the 'price of labour'"! TIle about-tum was largely
due to TIlomas Dunning's (1873) essay on 'Trades' unions and strikes', first
publ ished in 1860, providi ng arguments in defence of trade union act ion - bascd
upon the intrinsic defects ofa labour market.
6
Actually, Marx started to outline
a similar series of arguments, referring to, and several times quoting, Dunning
in both his manuscripts of 1861-6) and 1865..(,6. NOlle of these arguments
appeared III Volume I of Capital, as Marx reserved the full trealment of wages
and trade union action either for Volume) or for another, more specialized work. '
In Capital, Vol ume I, onc can fi nd (from the very fi rst edit ion onwards) an explic it
attack against Ihc doctrine of the 'So-Called L1bor Fund' (section 5 of Chapter
24) instead. In his theory of accumulation, which is not confined to the lasl section
of Capilal, Volume I, Marx plmmed to develop various propositions about the rise
and fall of wag cs in capitalist cronomies, about ille changes in real and nominal
wages, and about the tendency ofille relative wage to dcrline in the long run.
Marx used to critici ze the 't;1Ise crit iquc of political economy' of his social-
ist contemporaries as vigorously as, sometimes even more viciously than, he
took issue with the classical and the "vulgar' economists. He outright rejected
LaSSlllle's fomlUla for the 'iron and inexorable law' of wages, which he regarded
as mere phraseology. Of course, Marx disagreed with the political point Lassalle
had tried \0 make: if there was such a law, trade unions would be useless, as only
goventment support could help to solve the "social quest ion' .' On the contrary,
Marx's theory of wages did not only leave space for trade unions, but could be
read as an argument in their favour, transforming them from a mere nuisance into
an indispensable ingredient for the working of any labour market and of the wages
system at large.
9
Marx and Engels did not hesitate to criticize false claims and erroneous doc-
trines popular among trade unionists - such as 'fair wages' or ' equal wagcs' . No
such simple catch-all fonnulas were to be deri ved from Marx's theory of wages.
As Engels put it, Marx had demonstrated at length that Ihe 'laws regulating wages
are highly complicated'. TIlese laws arc 'anything but iron, on the contrary, they
arc highly clastic ' (Engc!s' letter to August Bcbcl, 18/28 March 1875: MEW, 35:
127, personal translation). Of course, there was not onc law, but quite a com-
plex of ' Iaws'that would, taken logeiller, allow for a rational e.l(planat ion of the
changes and di rrerences or the ratc of wages. Schumpcter, for onc, agreed wilh
Engels. According to hint Marx's theory or wages is highl y complex, fonning
'an extremely complex whole which covers practically all the aspects of the wagc
phenomenon . .. This whole must be pieced together from many parts of his writ-
ings' (Schumpcter, 1954: 664n). That was why he did not even try to discuss it at
any length.
Only a few of Marx 's ' b \\s" pertaining to wages have ever attracted any atten-
tIon - such as the lIlfmnous (and disputable) law of ' illl lll iscration:
1o
If there

follows directly from the overall rise of the general rale of surplus value which
he rcgMdcd as an inevitable, general tendency of capitulism. A decline in relative
wages is compatible with a rise in real wages, although it implies a general J:111 in
the 'value of labour power' regulating money wages. Like his Iheory of value or
his theory ormoncy, Marx's theory of wages is developed step by step throughout
Ihe three volulIIes of Capilal. Thus. the section on wages that wc find in Volume
I of Capilal (sect ion or part 6: On Wages) does not give us the whole !llcnry. It is
actually crammed full wilh anticipations. In this section, Marx is leaping ahead as
far as to the Na/iona! Differences ill Wages (Chapler 22) and the effecls of \\'orld
market compet ition. In Capilal, Marx is slicking 10 Ihc analysis of Ihe gClleml
relat ionship between capital and wage labour and reserves the exposition of all
the difTerent fonns of wages Imd the detailed analysis ofthcir movements for 'the
special sludy of wage labour' (Marx, 1867: 683).
[n Marx's plans. as well as in thc unfinished manuscripts for Volumcs 2 and 3
of Capilal. wc find more chapters dealing with wagcs. [n Volume 2. thc circula-
tion of variable eapita I as wel I as the indi vidual consumption of tile wage labourer
is analysed as pan of the circulation process of capital; money wages paid and
Spelll, the 'etTective demand' of wage labourers, play a cnlcial pan in Man: '
analysis of the reproduction of total social capital (including the accumulation
process). In Vol ume 3. he intended to go even funher and to inclnde tmde unions
and cooperatives in his analysis (Marx's leller to Engels, 25 January 1868; MEW,
32: 24; CW, 42: 527).
Thanks to hi s public Iccture on 'Value, price and profit' , which he read to
the central council of the Intemat ional Workingmen's Associ3lion (rWA) in June
1865, we get a beller idea of Marx's plans for Volume 3. In this lecture. Marx
took issue with the popular idCJ that any general rise in wages would botll haml
employment and be rendered fut ile by ensuing price increases.
1I
Although Marx
was successful in convincing the large of the members of the geneml
council that stmgglcs for higher wages and siloner working hours were necessary
and could be successfully waged, he refused publication of his speech. He did not
sutTer from modesty, bill was afraid to anticipate too many of the new ideas from
his sti11 unpublished book. ll Obviously, Marx planned to include some chapters
or paragraphs on the etTects of a general rise or fall in wages on both prices and
profits in Volume 3 - and in his manuscript for this volullle we find a section
(paragraph 5 of Chapter 2) dealing with this issue. Here, Marx tried 10 explain the
phenomenon of a rise or [,111 of prices (production prices) following a rise or fall
of the generallevcl or wages (MEGA [1/4. 2: 279; er. Marx, lR94: 302-6). That
very phenomenon was not easy to explain in tenns of a labour theory of value and
it had puzzled his oppollellls ill the general council debate.
Unsolved puzzl es ill Man' s theory of wa ges
In Capital. the capitalist is depicted as a honesl fellow most of the time: Marx
operates under the assumpt ion that labourers rcceive the full value oftllcir labour
... _ . , r .. - r .... " . .. --_ .. _ . ... _ .
power and employers do not try to cheat them or to push nominal wages below
the level of the value of labour power. " The price and value of labour power
are regarded as quant itatively congruent , and any changes in Ille valuc of labour
power arc supposed to be directly followed by proportionatc changes in the nomi -
nal or monctary wage rates. On the labour marke!, the 'law of value' govems.
As elsewhere, for instance with respect 10 money, Marx starts wilh an obvious
contradiclion. Labour powcr is a commodity in thc market like any other com-
modity, bul it is a very peculiar commodity as wcll , so il is not a commodity like
all the others. Labour markets arc like any other markets, but Illey are not; on the
contrary, they arc quite di lTerent from any other market (Kratkc, 1995).
Accordingly, Mal"); assures us that the value of labour power is detennlned hke
the value of any OIher commodity. BUI. as labour powcr is a very peculiar com-
modity, its value is detennined in a pecul iar way as well. In order to determine the
magnitude of that value, Marx slam wilh the amount of social labour necessary 10
produce and reproduce a unil of the commodity labour power: 'In so far as it has
value, it represcllls no more than a definite quantity orthe average social labour
objectified in it (Man<, 1867: 274). But then, without hesitation, Marx drops the
notion of Ille ' production of human labour power and replaces it by the mcre
'existence' of an individual capable of labour, so Ihat production of labourers
becomes rcproduction and mainlenance of already existing human individuals,
11mt is a rather awkward way to say that the labouT power of wage earners is actu-
ally not produced as a commodity blll only appears as such on Ille labour market
and Illanks to the making of such a very peculiar 'market' .'. Immediately, Marx
proceeds to the stalement thal the maintenance and reproduction oflhe individual
requires 'a certai n quantity of thc means of subsistence' (Marx ,1867: 274). 11llS
quantity, provided all the means of subsistcnce have alrcady adopted IlIC character
of conunodit ies, represents a sum of exchange values. So it is possible to pass
over from the value of the labour power 10 Ihe value of a given quantity of other
commodities. the ' means of subsistence' - or a certain quall1ity of ' wage goods '.
111e commodity labour power, as it appears in the second step of Marx 's initial
account. is the only commodity to be elllirely produced and reproduced by other
commodities, while all other COlllinodities arc produced and reproduced by living
labour plus inputs of other commodit ies. Hence, Marx jumps from a 'labour
theory' oftlle 'value of labour power ' 10 a 'cost-of-production' theory and forgets
about thc real process of the 'making' ofwagc labourers.
Of course, the value of labour power does nOl represent any kind of ' minimum
subsistence, Marx hastens to point out tlI.1t the necessary level of subsistence is
highl y variable in time and space - depending upon the impacl of various rhctors.
As often. he refers to 'averages' . Here. it is 'the average amount orllle 1l1elmsof
subsistencc necessary for the worker' which detenllines the value of his labour
powcr (Marx, 1867: 275). That average contains a physical element, the wear
and lear on the human body that results from a day's or a week 's labour, which
has 10 be compensated by 3 sufficient amounl of food in order to keep Ihe same
individual in good health and with Ille strength necessary to be able to continue to
work Even that IS highly "unable, dcpcnd111g upon the kmd of labour pcrfonncd
and the type and quantity of food and nutrition that society (and/or nature) have to
offcr. Howcvcr. it docs at least dctcnnine a 'minimum levcr, a basic limit below
which money wages cannot or should not fall. Like his predeccssors Torrens
and Ricardo, Marx stressed the importance of a ' moral and historical clement'
that incorporates ongoing changes in human needs and in the ways and means
of satisfying thcm. Nceds are highly clastic, and human beings arc able to adapt
to varying circumstanccs; thcy arc ablc to leam and to adopt and to dcvelop new
needs and habits, although. in the longer tenn, historically developed and acquired
needs become 'second nature'. Workers, as members of a civil, bourgeois society,
have families and children. Thus. the needs of their dependants and the costs of
Illeir reproduction enter into the detenni nalion of the value of labour power, as
do thc costs oflllC dcvelopment labour powcr, i.e. thc costs of special
training and edncation. All of these factors mllst be added to the ' definite quantity
of the means of subsistence' wc need in order 10 detennine the 'value of labour
power' .
From the beginning, wc arc told that the value of labour power is highly vari -
able - it can change in all directions and it will changc, fi rst , according to changcs
in the ' dcfinite quantity ofllle means of subsistence' which arc 'on average' neces-
sary and, second, according to changes in the values of Ihe commodities that
make up this quantity (Marx, 1867: 276)." Two different kinds of detenninants
arc combined: the values of each Single commodit y belonging to the 'definite
quantity of the means of subsistence', which are determined in the same way as
Ille values of all other conUllodities, and, second, this definite quantity or amount
or bundle of comrnodil ies (means 0 f conslUnption) itsel f (Harvey, I <J!!3).
Hellce, the value of labour power. as Marx theorizes it. poses a problem: the
value oflhe commodi ty labour power is thc only valuc inthc capitalist world that
is detennined not by Ille amount of social labour necessary to (rc)produce it, but
by the amounl of social labour necessary to (re)produce the amount of ' inputs '
or 'ingredients' that are regularly used in the process of its (re)produclion. TItose
inputs:lre commodities, so they can be summed up as 'values' within the frame-
work of a thcory of value. Labour, however, as was well known to Georg von
Charasoff (191 0), a contemporary of Rosa Luxemburg, is like a ' basic ingredient'
or a ' basic means of production', which is also entering its own (re)produclion
process. Man, however, deals with the issue of the value of labour power as if it
wcre not (re)produced by labour but by commodities only. Or, to put il differently,
he treats the process of consllmption as an automatism Ihat requires no human
labour input.
Of course, Marx 's basic idea is easy to explain. As a rule, working-class families
do not hire olller people to do their cooking, cleaning, washing, etc. Wlmlever is
produced within a working-class household is produced by means of the avaihlb1c
labour of family members. Most importalllly, it is produced as a commodity not
for sale, but for the subsistence oflhe family members themselves, for immediate
consumption. No value. no paid or unpaid labour, cnn occur in this context.
16
Domestic work brings forth for a defi nite group of conSUlllers, nothing
. --- .' r
else. Obviously. this di fficuhy is not as easy to solve with respect to the necessary
labour involved in tTilining and education.
11
That sell led, wc run into another, more serious, problem. In order to detennine
the precise, defini te quant ity of 'means of subsistence' or Ille ' real wages' (at an
average. not a minimum, level), wc h,1Ve two choices. The fi rst is to fall back upon
money wages, the quantity of money income available to working-class people,
which vcry efTectivcly restricts their choiccs as consumcrs and forces them to
put up with a rather moderate range and scope of 'means of subsistence' on a
regular basis. This is a rather disturbing option, remembering that the 'val ue of
labour power' was meant 10 regulme nominal, money wages - nOl vice versa.
Altemat ively, wc can try to find a way 10 eslablish a social nonn of consump-
tion for the working cl:ISS in capitalism - a defini tion of the 'normal ' scope and
range of ' necessaries' and 'amenities' for working-class people, the 'standards of
living' Ihat is available 10 and achievable by them. BUI whal detennines the social
nonn of consumplion thn! rules Ihe 'nonnal ' ratc of the 'real wages '? Agliella, for
onc, saw thc problem clearly (Agliclla. 1979: 152: Krtltke, 1983). '1 The so-called
'regulation school' forgot about it as quickly as possible.
Who or whm does detennine that amount of 'necessaries' , who selects and
delimits Ihe scope of 'wage goods' in Ihe realm of commodities? Workers arc
bound to restrict thcir purchases to 'wage goods' not becausc thc llIeans of pro-
duction arc forbidden to them. but because thcy lack the means to buy means of
production of their own and to stan their own business. In a market economy, it is
the amount of money that they have to spend on a regular basis that excludes them
from the markets for production or 'capital' goods. But they arc 'free agents',
responsible for their living and selling their own 'standards of life', whether
they remnin in 'working-cluss communities' or prefcr to follow Ille cxample set
by the middle classes. In Ille manuscript of 1857- 58 and again in the surviving
fragments of Ihe firsl redact ion manuscript for Volume 1 of Capifal, written in
1865-66, Man stresses the imporwnce of money wages for the free labourer. '9
It is the labourer himself. not his mastcr and employer, who spends the money
wages he earns. He spends Ihem as he likes, and he is responsible for his own li fe
and Illat of his family. So he can waste his wages. In fact , he ' can tllnt the money
into whatever use values he wants' (MEGA, W4.1: 103, personal translation). But
he cannot increase his money wages at will , so that he will be excluded from quite
a lot of 'mcans of subsistence' that arc beyond hi s resources.
Obviously, we are goi ng round in a circle. The soc ially necessary amount of
means of subsistence, ranging from bare ' necessities' such as food and cloth-
ing, to ' amenities' , Ihe full range of ' provisions' for a decent and healthy life of
the working man and hi s family, depending on a social nonn of consumption,
detcTlllincs the 'nonnal' level of average money wages. BUI, inevitably, it is the
amount of money wages avai lable that detennines which eonunodities, what
'means of subsistence ' in the market are and remain accessible for wage labour-
ers. Working men and women buy what they can afTord with the monetary wages
they cam. And what they can afTord and wliatlhey buy regularly becomes a 'wage
good ', a means of consumption bel onging to the ' nomlal standard of l, VIng' for
166 Michael H. Krlllkc
working-t:lass peOPle. Hencc. it is not that monC)' wages depend on the 'value of
labour power', buttl\at value c\cpends on the money wages paid and spent on a
regulllr basis. Raymond Aron (2002: 456) wenl as far as 10 dismiss the Marxi;m
concept of a 'value of labour power' altogelher, dismissing it as completely voi d
and useless, completely unqualllifiablc. [n his view, Marx lacked any reasonable
theory of wages.
Wc cannOI escape Ihe consequcnce.lhm the 'valtle' of tile labour power remains
indetenllinate and perhaps cannot be dctennined in any conclusive way, al leasl
IIOt independent of exisling pallems of income distribuliol1 and consumer spend.
ing. Once again. we run into the problem thm labour power is nOl a commodilY
like all the others. bUl commodified only under very special circumsrances and as
the result of a ratller po ..... erful social fi ction.1II Howe\'er, if that is true, it is Ilot only
the distinction between the value and price of the labour power that falls down:
wc also lack any Iheoretical base on which to analyse ilucmations in wages ovcr
ti me. Wh.1l is morc, the magnitude of surplus valuc, and thus thc core category of
Marx's' analysis of capitalislll, tunlS out to be indetenllinate as well. Whether or
not a 1'lbouTCT is exploited or rather exploiting hi s employer, and at what rme. is
all\\ost impossi ble to dctcnnine.
The corollary is clear and devaslating. If there is no unambiguous way 10
c\ctenllinc the value of labour power, Marx's 'Iaw' of the full of relative wages
cannot hold, nor C;"ln it evcn be fomlUlated in any mcaningful way. Wages are not
a residual category aRer all.
Rosa Luxemburg's reformulation of the ' Jaw' of wages
Whilc Rosa Luxemburg was teaching political economy, Marx's thcory of wagc
labour came Wldcr attack by IwO Gcnn;"ln economiSts: Bortkicwicz (1907) and
Oppcnheimer (1912). Bonkiewicz had hi s doubts about thc concepl of 'value
of labour power' in 1907: hc believed tlmtlhis 'valuc' could nOl be detcOllined
in the samc way as the valuc of othcr commodities because it is diffcrent from
olher conunodities. As there is no privatc production of human labour po""er for
Ihe market, nor any competition between private producers of this commodity.
Ihere is no way to establish any average 'socially lIecessary labour timc' for the
production of onc Wilt of labour power (Bonkiewicz, 1952: 57). Oppenheimer
rejcctcd the wholc concept power as a cOllunodity. holding tllatthc free
labourer is hired, not bought. as he never transfers thc rightS 10 his own person
to any employer (Oppen.heimer. 1912: (24).11 The Marxists, however, did not
respond to the
Luxemburg Slancd her dmpter on wages in a rather conventional way - point-
ing out some of tlle peculiarities of the commodity labour power. Labour power
cannot be SCP;lTllled from its proprictor, workcrs cannotw,li\. thcy cannot store up
thcircommoditY,lhey It.wc to spend whatever they cam, and. last nOl least, labour
power has a peculiar usevalue, that is the capacity to perfOnlllabour and. even
lnore imponam. surplus labour (Luxemburg, 1921 : 733-4). First. she wanted 10
demonstrate the complexity of Marx's laws of wages and, in panicular, 10 restate
, I I'Cry polilicol polilical economisl 167
the ' law' of the decline of relative wages. Second, she wanted to show in some
detail that the 'mechanism' of these laws is quite different from what orthodox,
bourgeois economics ,md I...;lssallcau rddicalism tell s us. She did not quote much
nor discuss propositions either from Marx or from onc or the other of the classical
cconomiSIS.!I
Reg.1rding the exchange bet ..... een wage labourtr and employer, she simply
stated that the employer pays the 'val ue' of the conunodity labour power - a lIalue
that is immediately, within the same phrase, equated wi th the ' production costs' of
this lIery eommodity. But she did nOt SlOP there, surpassing this inilial propoSition
easily enough. The worker, Luxemburg cont inued, has 'received hi s wages and
can do with it as he pleases' (op. ci!. : 741. pcrsonal trdllslation). A remarkable
statemcnt, as Luxcmburg had no opponunily to sce Marx's manuscripts from
1857- 58 or lmer."
What delenll incs thc 'value' of labour power? Luxcmbull; again dcparted
frOIll the si mple proposi tion she used inlhe opening paragraph ofhcr chapter, and
stated that the entrepreneur pays the '\'a]ue', that is Ihe 'production costs' ofa unit
of labour power. whenever he P<l YS <I money wage Ihat is su fficient to eOller the
worker's kecp (op. cit. : 739). State regulat ions of wage levels apan, why should
any capitalist respect the rulc that the money wages paid should be sufficient
for the labourcr to buy his 'necessary mt.111S of subsistence"! Obviously, that is
a highly contested terrain. Why Should cmployers havc nny S<ly at ,Ill aboul the
living standards of their employees? [n praetice, they have - not directly but by
detenninins thei r wage rates and tlle amOWlI of money wages their workers can
eam.
The capitalist , any eapilalist. as a buyer of human labour power startS to argue:
What is sufficient'! Whlll is 'necessary"! How much 'necessaries' is enough'! What
amount alld/orqllality orprovi sions is more than necessary? What is 'uonn,1]' for
wage workers? Whm should be reg.1rded as a 'Irndi tional standard of life ' for thi s
clllss of people'! 11li5 is s!r:mge for in II class society Ihat proclaims ils openness
lmd rejcct s the social logic of established 'ranks' or 'eSlnles'. So. allhe core of
Ihe stntggle between the buyer and the seller of the commodi ty labour power
wc have an argumenl about 1IOnll.1]' or 'Imditionar and 'necessary' slandards of
life - a debate that focuses 011 only onc half of the b.1rgain, Ihe wage labourer. TIle
'nccessary' swndard of tife for the employer is not at stake here.
So again, as in Ihe ongoing Struggle over Ihe length oflhe working day, both
the buyer and Ihe seller of thc commodity labour power arc insisting on their
rights - the buyer demanding 10 pay not more than a fair and reasonable price,
as Ihe market allows, the seller dellmnding 10 receive ut least a price covering
his nonnal ' production COStS'. Both sidcs Il rc right, no onc is claiming anything
beyond the hori7.on of the market exchange, bot h sides arc demanding only what
thcy are entitled 10 reeeive in II regular markcl exehange, both follow the logic
of exchange or argue from thc point of view of the ' pure commodity' (or pure
cxchange), as Luxcmbull; putS il.
Rosa Luxcmburg comes up with a solution. 11lcre is no octcnnination, no 'law'
of wages wi thout lhe trade unions. Only by the incessant activity of tradc unions
,vv ...
and within the context of 'organized' labour markcts can somcthing like a nonn
for moncy wages be established for largc groups of wagc labourers. ' It is only
illanks to the trade unions that ille labour power as a commodity can be sold at its
value' (Luxemburg, op. ci\.: 764, personal translation). Trade wlions do not abol
ish the 'law of value' for the commodit y labour power. On the contrary, it is only
because of the trade unions illat the law of value can ever !Jave any validity for
the commodity labour power. Without illelll, no labour power would ever be sold
or paid for at its value. Employers would push Ihe level of money wages as far as
possible IOwards and beyond the minimUIll level of lhe mere subsistence costs,
while workers would organize and light back to preventjustthal.
l l
Trade uni ons
would try their best to push the level of money wages up - as far up as possible.
Marx, in his lecturc of JWle 1865, insisted upon the pcculiarilies ofthc particu
lar commodity labour power and its ' value'. He placed the elTeets of trade wlion
barg,1ining in the context of the industrial cycle and of the general tendencies
of capitalist production. Even if trade unions succeeded in preventing a fall in
money wages during the phases of crisis and stagnation, or achieved some rises
during prosperity, on the whole, during the full course of an industrial cycle, they
would j ust succeed in realizing the ' average' level of money wages, more or less
corresponding to the 'value of labour power' (Marx, 1865; MEGA, 11/4.1: 425).
But in the few remaining pages of the lirst draft of Volume I of Capital. written
in 1863-64, Marx argued Ihat Irade wlions are nothing blll 'combinations fonned
by the workers for the protcction of the \'a/lie oflheir labour-power' , preventing a
fall of the money wages below that value or a depression of that value 'below its
customary level' (Marx, 1867: 1070; MEGA, 11/4.1 : 11). Whatever their results,
organized struggles for the standard of wages aTe necessary - and without thelll,
thc 'val ue of labour power' would be a mere fiction (MEGA, IV4.1: 432).
Luxemburg's solution was a highly political onc. She remained within ille
framework of Marxist orthodoxy though, because she did not deny or abandon the
concept of the value of labour power. But, in contradiction to the Marxist ortho-
doxy illat even then look the fictitious cOlTunodity 'labour powcr' for granted, she
insisted upon the peculiarities of Ihis very special commodity. As labour power
was a highly peculiar commodity, ilS 'value' could not be detennined in the
same way as that of every other common commodity. Free competition between
market agents was not enough, could even prevent the fonnation of a 'value' . a
social nonn strong enough to rcgulate average monetary wagcs. Accordingly, a
comoletelv 'free' labour market. a labour market without any kind or del!ree of
organizat ion and cooperation, should be regarded as a ' buyers' market" , ruled
by the employers alonc. Without some organization on the side of the sellers of
labour power, wi thout restriction of the competition betwecn workcrs, the 'value'
of labour powcr could not prevail - at least not for thc largc of wage
earners. Rosa Luxemburg had nlll into onc of the various open ends of Marx's
theory, where his 'pure' theory of capitalism turns out to be very political.
UnfortwJalely, Tugan-Baranowsky had refuted the whole concept of a 'value'
of labour power and challcnged the Marxist orthodoxy, which had no real answcr
to the rL'Ccnt dc\,cl opl11cnts UJ real wagcs throughoullhc capitalI st world which
" ,-'" Y pUll/le", 1'UI I/O '-W ""UIIUIIII 0 I , v;.o
lived through one of its 'golden ages' from 1893 to 191 4. In his view, labour or
labour power was not a commodity at all , wages coul d not be considered a 'value
phenomenon' and Marx's theory of wages was outright wrong or just tautological
(Tugan.Baranowsky, 1913: 19--20).26 The normal standards of living for work
ers were delenni ned by lhe level of money wages, not vice versa. A good pupil
of Marx had to cOllle np with another theory, relying npon the power relations
between capitalists and wage labourers, and nothing else. Willl respect to the wage
levels, Ihe level and quality oflhe Irade unions was to be regarded as the decisive
faclor (Tugan.Baranowsky, 1913: 45). That looked, of course, quile similar to
Rosa Luxemburg's position, but was actually something quite different - although
highly critical with regard to the neoclassical orthodoxy in the making.
The first Marxist debate 011 the theory of wages - Rosa
Luxemburg's impacl
The ACCIIIIIII!alioll of Capital (Luxemburg, 1913) met with fierce resistance from
the Marxist economists in the Gcnllall , Austrian and Russian social democratic
movement. If anything, Luxemburg had triggered ofT the first serious debate on
Marxian macroeconomics (Kr:itke, 2006). Her Introduction to Polilical Economy,
however, did not arouse any similar reactions. As Paul Lcvi (1925: Ill) remarked
in his preface, the important chapters on val ue, on price, on the mte of profit and
on the theory of crisis were missing. The chapter on wages did nOl attract much
allention.
Onc year later, Fril% Stemberg (J 926) published his st udy Oil Imperialism. He
was the only Marxist economist to follow the lead of Rosa Luxemburg and to sup-
port her basic insight - the idea Ilmt ' non-capitalist' areas were indispensable 10
understand both the historical development and the inner mcchanislIlS of modem
capitalism What is more, he tried to spell out the consequences of Luxemburg's
ann lysis of cnpitnl accumulation on a global scale - in particular with respcctlo the
theory of wages and the industrial reserve amly. A refonnulation ofMarx's theory
of wages was onc of the central eOlllributions of his book. Henryk Grossmann
anaeked it, Stemberg responded and, three years laler, Grossmann published hi s
own magnum opus, which included a severe aunek on Lw(emburg's theory or
wages. Again, SteOlbcrg responded, defending Luxemburg's approach and his
own theory (Grossmann, 1928, 1929: Stemberg, 1929: Stemberg, 1930). 111is is
the only Marxist debate on the theory of wages that Luxemburg's IlIIrrxillClioll
had triggered ofT.
According to Sternberg, n decline in rclmive wages wns inevitable in the longer
teml - in this respect he agreed with Luxemburg. But a rise in renl wages - and the
average level of monetary wages - was nonetheless possible - even beyond the
10-year period of an average business eyelc.
l1
The crucial factor, in Stemberg's
view, was not the trade unions but the relnti ve weight of the 'surplus popula'
tion' , and the Marxian industrial reserve nnny' in particular. It s si ze, its stmcture
and development , it s 'expansion' and 'contraction' as it occurred not only within
onc industrial cycle but also in the longer term detemlined the chances of wage

170 Michael R. Krtitke
struggles. During the rCCCnl phase of 'imperial ism' Ihe surplus populat ion had
shrunk and nearly disappeared thanks 10 large-scale emigration from Ihe capitalist
hcartlands of Europe. As long as the pressure from a large and increasing surplus
population was no longer felt , trade unions in Europe could do their job and push
up wage levels - which they had done successfull y (Slcmbcrg, 1926, 1929).
What wc gel from this refonllulatioll of Marxian laws of wages arc historical
'laws' - laws valid for peculiar periods in time. The centrepiece of Stcmbcrg"s
explanation aCthe long-tent] rise in real wages among the European working class
in particular was a historical conjuncture - not Ihe regular course of indust rial
cyclc:s. For some lime, workers in Europe enjoyed a kind of 'close season'. and
as long as this close season lasted thcir rcal wages continucd to risc. But in thc
longcr tenll - and due to succcssful imperialist cxpansion of scvcrJl capitalist
powers - the working class had 10 face another period of decline, not only of Ihe
relative wages bUI also of absolute wage levels - at least for the large majority of
wage earners.
Sternberg'S historical interpretat ion of the 'laws' reguhlting wages was harshly
attacked. Henryk Grossmann accused him of Iheoretical treason and did not
r.1il to blame Rosa Luxemburg for Ihe grJve mistakes of her pupil (Grossmann,
1928). In his view. both had abandoned (he value theoretical core of (he maner
and gained nothing. I.n his /IIagll/llll opus. published just a year later, he devoted
the last scc(ion to the theory of wages (Grossmann, 1929: 580-603). Luxemburg
had abandoned the core of Marx's theory of wages :md she was glossing things
over whcn she ascribed a ceiUrJl role to ille (rade unions (Grossmann, 1929: 587).
Any rise in real wages could be explained on the base of' Marx 's law of value'.
As capitalist industry devcloped. both the producti vity and the intensity of labour
were bound to rise - aud real wages would risc accordingly. But in hisloricallime,
illis tendency would be offset by the rising organic composit ion of capital and a
rise of (tcchnologieal) uncmpl oymelll (Grossmann, 1929: 595-8).
Sternberg reacted and produced a lengt hy critique ofGrossmann 's book in tuOl
(Sternberg, 1930). His critique focused heavily upon Grossmann's treatment of
ille devclopment of wages in the longer teOll. He claimed 10 have actually done
whal Grossmann had demanded and presented as a (ask still unsol ved by Marxist
economists. [n his book he had already demonstrated how a 10ng-teOlI rise in real
wages and a 10ng-teOlI decline in Ihe relat ive wages were bOlh possible. even
necessary at the same time (Sternberg, 1930: 75). Grossmann's main explanation
for the long.tenn rise in real wages - the rise of the average intensity oflabour-
did no( fit the facts.
Unfortunately, both men had a point. Grossrnann was right - Marx had treated
the 'val ue of labour power' as a variable that depended upon the (variable) work
ing time as well as upon the variable intensity lUld productivity of labour. BUI
Luxemburg and SteOlhcrg were also right - the rise of the average money wages
and the real wages in thc longer (COlI could not be explained without (he big,
historical conjunctures of the labour market and the 'big' tendencies of capital .
ist development. Obviously, it was not so easy to cope with the complexity of
Marx' theory of wages. The political clement of that illeory, (re)discovcred by
,
Rosa Luxemburg, was panieularly hard to swallow for onhodox Marxists, who
swore on the 'law of val ue' and could not conceive of the ' value oflabour power'
as contested terrain.
Notes
I SOCIalists were aClUally cxcludl'd from kadllllg positions lIt umversities in the
Gennan empire, as were with a working c1ass background. Hencc, socialist
and working-class had to organize thei r own schools and to build up
tlleir own higher education, which they did, following the basic insight that ' Wissen
ist Macht ' (knowledge is power)!
2 Luxemburg was a prolific writer and excelled in (Xl])ular and political
journalism. Her journal as well as her many public speeches and lectures had
won her the support oflarge part s ofthc left in the German Social L>cmocmtic I'arty
as wcll as in thc tradc unions.
3 In January 1919, Rosa Luxcmburg had 10 ftee and hidc in a Berlin ridden by civil war
and infested with annl'd mobs, still wearing uniforms of Ihe imperial anny, but OUI
tor murder. Eventually. she fell prey to these murderous gangs, her apartml'llt was
plnmkrl-d und \lIany of her papers were stolen mid destroyed. In 1: 1CI. some of the
nOles thal Luxemburg had prepared for her lectures alIbI' party school as well as some
notes taken by hl1" stu<i<:nLS have survived. Among th""!ll, wc find two lectures dealing
with Volumcs 2 and J of Marx 's Capital. a leeture dealing the history of political
economy, another dcaling with the labour or wage flUids theory and two chaptcrs of
tile plalUled book - a shorter chapter on ' Slavery' (which has already been published
sl'Vernl times) and a long, unpublished chnpt(.1" on the feudalism dealing with the rise
of the towns and the 1Ik.>dieval market economy (ct: Krlitke,2008).
4 According 10 Marx, this is onc of Ihe historical pt.'Culiarities of wage labour III its
modem form and crncial for any understanding of the historical mle of the proletariat.
In a lcUer to Engcls, wriltCll on 8 January. M:nx praised the prescntation of wages
os the ' irmtional foml of appearancc of a relationship hidden behind it' as onc of the
three ' fundamentally new elements' of Capillll (MEW. 32: 11 , personal trnnslation;
CW. 42, SI4).
5 In foct , Mills' Principlcs of Palilical Economy, first pnbli shed III I 848, had
acqnired the position of the leading textbook of political in the English-
speaking world., a position that il was to retain until it was grndnally replaced by
Alfred Marshall'S t;CO/lOmiC!i. In 1869, M ill publicly annoul1ced his conviction that
the ' labour fund' doctrinc was l"tltircly false.
6 Both Mar>: ;lIId Mill pmised it highly (Lapides. 1998: 84).
7 Aller Marx had changed his original plan of 1858. the six books plan - mciuding a
book on 'wage labour ' - in the I 860s, he consequently distinguished bctwel'll the
'genl"TIll study' of the capitolist mode of production and ' special ' studies which should
go into much llIore detail regarding the history and the variety of modern capitalism.
I lcnce. the complaint by Lcbowitz and others that Marx III 'Vcr wrote a book on ' wage
labour ' is misgnided (Lebowitz, 2003).
8 That is a very popular notion anlOng the European Left until this Vl'ry day.
9 As hi s treatml'llt of the making of the British factory ];lWS clearly dcnlOnstrates, Marx
was convinced that in thc cnd only state action could help workers to stabilize their
temporary gains in the never-cnding struggle wilh their employers. Hence, trade
nnion action had to change into outright politicol action.
o It is ocllllllly stllk'd as a gl'llernl law rcli:rring to lhc working class as H whole, not
only to Ihe pauperi7.cd sections. EVl"tl if the' absolUle standard of life nf the wage
labourers remains the same or improves. their rclalivc wages and their reialive social
roo<ilion. COllltlm-ed with that of the would he hound to dcclirn' in the 10lle
tenn (Marx, 1867: 798). For :l briefprcscnt:uion 01" 111e miscl)" dcb-lle
237).
11 This. us ... .yl-rybody will realize illU1k(haldy. rel1l:1in5 ll1e prevai ling dogma in our
tirnt"S.
12 Sec Morx's' lener 10 Engds of24 Junc 1865. alld Engcls' !cuerlo Mar;.; of IS July
18G5 (MEW, 31: 125, 128: CW, 42: 162- 3, 1(8). The of Marx 's leclure
reslcd \ulpublishcd il his d:lUglllCf Elcanor fmuld il and puhlished il in lhe original,
Englisll Vi.'Biou, in 1898.
13 or course they do, bUllhc 'generJI theory' is not the place 10 deal \I; lh such
14 This is onc of Ihc cornerslones of Marx's critiqllC of classical (and neoclassical)
1X0nornics: Ul/.' ' labour m3rket' is not. market like all tile but a vcI)' Jk'Culiar
in'llIlUlioll. onc of the !NISII.' 1I151l1l1tions sl)!.'CiflC for modem clllliU1l ism (KrDtke. 1995).
15 Lcbowitz (2003) 3l'CUSC!! of Ilt.:lkmg the false assumllllon thm IlK: nmount of
nccCS!kl1)' of SllbsiSlCltt:C is ' giVl.'n :It atly rnOIlM.'1lt :lnd tre:l\5 'Juartt ity as a
'eOllstam n\'1gll ilUde'. I le is \\"rOl1g. Taking the lImount o('nCCCSS!lries' orthe quantity
of means of ' given' lit 3tly time and pia' is 53me as treating
' constant' . In focI, Marx this assumption only to dcvdop his basic COllCq)(
or surplu:; v3111O: - and he drops it when hc SiaM uU31ysing lite diITcn:nt methods
of 'absolute' und relative surplus '"DIuI.' production' ond the big changes OI."Cnrring
In the capitalist mode of prodlK;tioll due to Ihe oonst:mt pursuit of surplus vulue by
doIs llOl hke Ihe IllaUOC'T In \lhich Marx llCtWllly 1I'I."fllS the ' value
of Ml(IUT pow .. ,.' Ir.o \!linable - hutlhal is !\ completely dl ncn:nt matlt,..
! 6 Of course. cltploillltion oflabouris also pu'iSible in the COOU.' .ltl ofl hc fami ly household,
but il IlIh'l':I ditl"erelll fonll.
17 In my entl)' on ' Einfoche nnd kOlllflliziene Albeit ' (Simple and oompliClltcd labour')
PI J/islorisch, Krili${'hef /Vlh1erinu:h des .Hor:fi.smll$, ont" l11n find shoo history of
lite Munist debates on lite SlKalkd 1l.'<Iuction problem'. dC3ling with the diITlTCllt
"Ilues :md wage rates of diflCrt'llt kinds of1abour power (KrIIlke. 1998).
18 AgliclI.Il (1979), in his scmin.al study of US capitllhslIl, 1\"'SlIflk:d tIll! cslablishn](.., n
of ' socinl nonu' of C01lSumpllOll for Ihe working clllss as olle of lite cruciul
unsolwd Il1"obk.'fI1S ofMans Ibeory OfwllgCS
19 AetUDlIy, I.'vell in the Britain of 1867, wage labourers J1I"II complelely free
as In:ttket :tgcnts and wages Wi,'f\' llOt yel in cMh lIS a g..."'fICf'dl 0111.'. The tfllck
systelu, still in sway in mallY indnslrics despite the TOlCk AI.'l of 1831 , WllS
SUPJ1l"l'iSl:tl by as Mc as 1887.
20 Hwntm ll,boUf powcr, accordingly. should be n:gunkd us a p,.'culi:lr ' fictitlOUl
commodity' . '!be tmn. of course, is 1'01:111);'5 more tluUl NOIK1hdcss, from
unalysis of lhe c()l1Hict aboul thc ]ahOIlf contIbCl IInd thc .. i()n of the
' oon1131' \\'ooong June 111 p.1l1iculnr, It bcconk'S sufficiently clear that he OCHlUIly
did of human labour pOWCf lIS a "1.'1)' peculiar commodil)', :I commodil Y
thOI eoold inl0 l!Xi511'1lCl.' and rise 10 normalilY only Lh:mu IiI u large varil!ty
of polilicaJ oclions (cf. Kriilke, 1995). NonClhcll:!is, onc blame Marx for nOl
LTlIphasizing the pcculillfities of the ways in which the , 'alue of this highl)' sJIl1;ial
is detmlUlled.
21 lbat argument is still in \IS(: today - although JIO\\'adays lite phenomellon of a ' Iabout
COII!f1lCt ' is widely accepted.
22 lhe debate 00 the valllo!-J)lire ' ImnsfOlluntiol\ ' In Volullle J of G'pfr"l, Ihal
llllhe sallle time ol1ly CSl3bhsh,;:d the rod habit OfrL'I)loclng Marxian of
"'I1lne of l:tbour power' and ' wriabk capillll ' by wages, in fact a bundle of ' wage
goods' rcg,ardOO as onc of the malerial inputs' inl0 the proollCtion process. That habit
JlClliists to this day, illl:loding the SO<:lHcd ' new inlcrpn.18Iion' of thc ' lrn!ISfOml:lIion
probkm' .
23 She did, llO\\"cvlT. ill her lectures at Ihe part )' deal with the or labour
funds tlteo!}' - S19rting with the classical economists and proceeding 10 ils critKIOC.

<
Copyrighted Material
A I'ery polif/cal PO!1fic{1/ ecollomist 173
She presents Marx's theory of wages 3S the critique of these earlier and contetllponuy
critiques, 8 critique going beyond both the labour funds tllrory and its critics (cl'.
Kratke, 2008).
24 These manuscripts were first published a long time ancr his death, in 1933, 1939-41,
and in 1978-82 :m: nuw available in the MEGA, us well as in the
Cvllecled Jlhl"b.
25 In 1913, Nikolai Bucharin (!913/ 14) had brought forward a very similar argument
with respeet to the importance of the continuous struggle about the 'lIonnal ' level of
real wages lor the Ma!XiWl theory of wag cs and exploitalion.
26 Tugan attacked the n<:oclassical doctrine of value ami distribution by the same tokl->lJ.
27 For HIl extensive and well-inlonul-d discussion of Ille rise of real wages 111 mn<:tecnth-
alld Europe, see Scholliers (1989).
f \gllelUl, JVI . t 1 :I I:I} lIegW/lIlOll el crises 011 COpII(IIISllle, lruns. uy U . rlTIlUilCn, 11 /lIeory aJ
Capitalist Regulatioll , London:
Aron, R. (2002) Le Marxisme de Mm'x, Paris: Edilons de Fallois.
I30rtkiewicz VQI1, L. (1907) ' Wertredlllung IUld l>reisredlllung irn Marxschcn System' tran,
by J. Kahane; (! 952) . Value and price in the Marxian system', Il1Iernaliolla/ Ecollomic
Papers, 2: 5--60.
Ducharin, N. (1913/14) 'Eine Okonomie ohne Wert' , Die Nr?1le Zeil, 32: 806--12, 850--8.
Chaf350lTvon, G. (1910) DlIs Syslem des Marxi.I"IIIlIS, Berlin: Hans Bondy.
Dunning, TJ. (1873 2nd cdn, corrcdcd) 71"l1des Unions alld Slrikes. Their Philosophy and
IlIlenlioll, London: Society'S House.
Grossmann, 11. (1928) ' Einc IICUC thcoric ilber impcrialismus und 50ziaJc rcvolutioo',
Archiv flir die Gescbieh/e des Sozialisl/lus ""d Jer Arbeilerbe ... egllllg, X1U: 141- 92.
-- ( 1929) Dlls A/;/;IIII!1Ilaliol1s-lIlId ZllSalllmellbnlchs-gesel: des kapitalislischell
.'lp/ems, Leipzig: Hirschfc1d.
Harvey, 1'. L. ( 198.1) ' Man's theory of thc value of labor power: an asscssme!1l ', S<JCial
Research, 50: 305--44.
Krlilke, M.R. (1983) 'z'ur politischcn Okonomic des Wohlfllhnsstaats - und ihrcr
Oberfillligcn Kritik', Pro/;/o, 49: 99--120.
--(1995) ' Art Arbcitsmarkt' , in w. r Haug (!.'d.) llislorisch-Krilische!l Wlirtcrbllch des
MurxislIIlIs, Band 1, Hrunburg: ArgumcrJt Vcrlag.
-- (1998) ' Art Einfaehe und komplizierte Arbeit' , in w.F. Haus (!.'d.) His/ariseh-
Krilische!l Wlirlerfmch des Marxisnlll!! , Band 3, Hamburg: Argumcnt Verlag.
-- (2006) The Luxemburg Debate - '111e Beginnings of Marxian Macroeconomics,
paper prescnt!.'d to the International Rosa Luxembllrg Conference, Wuhan
March 2006.
Krlilke, M.R. (cd) (2008) Eine "ehr politische OkOllOmin: Rvsa
IIm-eroffelll/iehle MlIlllls/;riple :lIr Po/ilisehen Okonolllie, Berlin: Dict:L Verlag.
Lapidcs, K. (1998) Marx ll llilge Theory ill !lislm'ieal Pcrspecl;"e, Westport: Pmc-gcr.
l.;.sehitza, A. (2000) 1111 Lebensrrmsch, lror. al/edem. Rosa LIIXelllblll""g, Bcrlin: Au1b11U
Tascbenbucb Vcrlag.
LcbowilZ, M. (2003, 2nd edn) lJeyond Capilol. Morx:. Polilicu/ Economy 0/ the nQrkillg
Ch,." Basingstoke: l'algf3V\' Macmillan.
Lcvi , P. (1925) Vorwort l U Rosa Luxemburg, EinHibrung in die Nationalokonomie. Bl'T1in:
Dict t. Vcrlag.
Copyrighted Material
174 Mlcl/oef R. Krmke
Luxemburg, R. (1 925) Eflljilhnmg ill die NorionoloJ;onomie. in (1990) GesnmlUelte Wcrke,
Ad. 5, Rcrli n: f)iclz Verlag (4. Auflagc), PI>' 524-778.
--(1 913) nlCAccllftllllation ()/Copllal. London: ROUl lcge & Kcgao Paul.
Mnrx. K. (1867. 4th cdn. 1890) Dos K' pilal. Erster Band. trnn,. by B. Fowkes (1990)
Capital, Volume I, I.oOOon: Penguin BooI<s.
Mnrx K. and Engcls f. Collected H'nrb (CW), various volumes. London: Lawrencc &
Wi shan.
- MlIr:c-Engc/s Gesllnllollsgllbc (MEGA 1'0, various VOl lUUCS (lV4:1 6konomisch.c
1863-1867. Teil I. 1988 014: 2, Okonomischc Monuskriplc 186J- 1867.
Tcil 2. 1993) Ocrli n: Dictz.
Mll rx K. Dnd Engcls E] MOI'X ElIgcLr-Wcrlic (MEW), volumes, Berlin: DiciZ.
- ( I 894) DOJ Kapiral. Dn'fleI' Bond Capital. trans. by D Fcmooch (1991) VolunlC 3.
l.ondon: I'cnguin Rooks.
Oppcnhcimcr, F. (1 912) lAc so:;ale Frage mrd der So:ialislJIlIs. F."mc
AlIsemrmdel'serzllng ",i, del' mornw.1chen nrenrie, Jenn: FischcT.
Scholl icrs. P. (cd) (1989) Real H'oge.J in 19,,, (md 10lh CeJUlII)1 Europe. Oxford: Oerg.
Sehumpcter, J.A. (1954) Hisrory nf ECOII01mc Ana/),ot;.'J. New York: Oxford Uni\'crsiIY
Press.
Slcmbcrg. F (1926) Dcr lmpcrioli.mm.r, Berlin' Mali!.:-Vcrlng.
--(1929) !)er 'Imper ialism,,') ' u/l d seine Krifiker, Berlin: So7iologischc Verl:J.gS3nS[olt.
- (1930) Eirlc Umwllkrmg der WissellSchaji? Berlin: R.t.. Pragcr
Tugon-BamnowsL:y. M. (1913) SaziaJe Theol1e del' f/er/elhmg. Berlin: Springer.
Vi nl, J (1994) Copllof alld A Lakarosioll ffis/or)' qf rhe Fuud DoClril,e,
Aldershot: Edword ElgllT.
Wennel, M.T. ( 1939) rhe EvolllllO/I of C/OS.VlCO/ Wage Tlre(JJJ". New York' Col umbia
Uni versIty l'res!>.