RESUMEN:
Moseley confronts the ‘transformation problem’ from a methodological conception based on interpreting ‘Capital’ as a logical representation composed by a macro-theory concerning total social capital, and a micro-theory concerning the distribution of total surplus-value among individual capitals. This approach mutilates the dialectical development of the organic unity between social capital and individual capitals. Moseley attempts to reinstate the broken unity by interpreting that the prices of production of the elements of capital must be considered as quantitatively given to explain the very process of value’s valorisation from which the same prices would result. To eliminate any further quantitative divergence Moseley rejects the determination of gold’s exchangeability as a product of capital. In conclusion, he attempts to end the ‘transformation problem’, but his methodological approach falls within its realm. Nevertheless, by forcing the methodological inversion beyond its logical coherence, the need for a ‘dialectical reproduction’ to overcome the issue becomes evident.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Transformation problem; Value; Prices of production; Marxism; Method; Dialectics.