ON MARXIAN ECONOMICS 11 The Need for a Value System The challenge thrown up by Sraffa and his neo-Ricardian followers like Steedman is quite interesting, but somewhat misplaced in the context of Marxian economics properly understood. We have shown how values are to be calculated in the presence of fixed capital, so that we do not obtain negative values. Pure joint production is ruled out by the classification of three departments. The Sraffa problem of order reversal of capital composition does not occur under such circumstances. Now considering the economy on the path of expanded reproduction, akin to the von Neumann ray, all the Marxian propositions about value and price are found to be completely valid in essence, despite arithmetical inaccuracies as Marx did not follow through all the steps of iteration in the transformation of value into prices. Now the question is: If the market can function with the P-system alone—capitalists invest and produce keeping in view the market prices only—and if P can be mathematically determined without any reference to V, why do you need the V-system at all? In fact, herein lies the fundamental contribution of Marx. The V-system shows that even if values are equal (or proportional) to prices, that is, equivalents, in terms of value, are exchanged, there is surplus-value or exploitation. The P-system in general distributes that surplus value between sectors. The capitalists as a class appropriate the surplus-value, but what one capitalist gets is not necessarily equal to what originates in his own factory. He may be getting more, or may be less. This underlines the class homogeneity that binds the capitalists together, and at the same time, it points to their internal conflict. By the same token, the workers realise that if they want to give combat to the private appropriation of surplus-value they have to fight against the entire capitalist class, not merely against a single capitalist in isolation. In terms of ^ure' economics, the Marxian theory of surplus-value implies that unpaid labour is the source of capitalist profit in sharp contrast to the opposite views that profit is the reward for the capitalist's "abstinence9, or for the marginal productivity of capital. If the neo-Ricardians do not appreciate the social and economic significance of this, they are imitating an ostrich. Private appropriation of surplus-value, that is, exploitation, is not to be condemned on ethical grounds. Historically it had played a progressive role in certain countries. With the growth of capitalism, and the increasing centralisation and concentration of capital, capitalism has passed into the phase of imperialism.