Recent Interpretations of the "Transformation Problem''

In recent decades, there has been a significant amount of new work and reinterpretations of the "transformation problem,'' which have defended Marx's theory against the long-standing criticism that Marx "failed to transform the inputs'' of constant and variable capital. This essay reviews three such reinterpretations: the "new solution'' of Duncan Foley and Gerard Dumenil, my own "macromonetary'' interpretation, and the Rethinking Marxism interpretation of Richard Wolff, Antonio Callari, and Bruce Roberts. I conclude that there is no logical inconsistency in Marx's theory, and that the alleged logical inconsistency is based on a misinterpretation of his logical method-in particular, his method of determination of constant and variable capital. I argue that this criticism of Marx's theory is based on class-inspired ideological grounds and not on canons of sound logic.