A critique of Shaikh’s two interpretations of Marx’s ‘transformation problem’
指出谢赫在1977年论文和后续著作中对马克思转型问题提出了两种不同解释，两者都认为总利润不等于总剩余价值，但第二种解释缺乏文本证据，并与作者的宏观货币解释形成对比。
Abstract It is argued in this paper that Shaikh has presented two different interpretations of the transformation problem in his works. In his influential 1977 paper, he presented an “iterative” interpretation in which there is a transfer of value between departments in the economy; and in a series of papers in the 1980s and in his recent book, he presented a different interpretation in which there is a transfer of value between firms in Department 3 and capitalist households. An important common feature of these two different interpretations is that total profit is not equal to total surplus-value. The two interpretations present different explanations of this divergence, which are examined in detail in this paper. It is argued that there is no textual evidence whatsoever to support Shaikh’s second interpretation. A few comparisons will also be made to my “macro-monetary” interpretation of Marx theory according to which there is no transformation problem in Marx’s theory and total profit is always equal to total surplus-value.