「マルクスが関心を抱いていたのは、社会の革命的な変容であり、それはつまり、資本主義の価値形態をかなぐり捨て、それに代わる価値構造を構築すること、資本主義の下で成し遂げられたものに特有の性質を持たないオルタナティヴな価値システムを構築することを意味する。この点は強調しても強調しすぎるということがない。というのも、常套的なマルクスの価値論の解釈によれば、マルクスの価値論は、わたしたちが従うべき普遍的規範とみなされているからだ。「マルクスの問題は、費やされた労働に起因する価値概念だけが唯一真正なものであるというマルクスの信念である」という不満を人々が口にするのを、何度聞いたかわからないぐらい耳にしてきた。これはまったく的外れだ。労働価値論は歴史・社会的産物である。したがって、社会主義者であれ、共産主義者であれ、革命派であれ、アナキストであれ何であれ、問題は、オルタナティヴな価値形態を見つけること、社会の社会による再生産を別イメージで稼働させる価値形態を見つけることなのだ。マルクスは、フェティシズムという概念を導入することで、古典的政治経済学にある自然起因の価値がいかにして規範を定めるかを示している。もしこの規範に盲目的に追従し、商品フェティシズムを複製していけば、わたしたちは革命的可能性を最初から閉ざしてしまうことになる。わたしたちが成すべきこと、それはいまある規範を問い質すことだ。」(Harvey. A Companion to Marx's Capital. 46)
"What Marx is interested in is a revolutionary transformation of society, and that means an overthrow of the capitalist value-form, the construction of an alternative value-structure, an alternative value-system that does not have the specific character of that achieved under capitalism. I cannot overemphasize this point, because the value theory in Marx is frequently interpreted as a universal norm with which we should comply. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people complain that the problem with Marx is that he believes the only valid notion of value derives from labor inputs. It is not that at all; it is a historical social product. The problem, therefore, for socialist, communist, revolutionary, anarchist or whatever, is to find an alternative value-form that will work in terms of the social reproduction of society in a different image. By introducing the concept of fetishism, Marx shows how the naturalized value of classical political economy dictates a norm; we foreclose on revolutionary possibilities if we blindly follow that norm and replicate commodity fetishism. Our task is to question it." (Harvey. A Companion to Marx's Capital. 46)
"Marx is engaged in a critique of classical liberal political economy. He therefore finds it necessary to accept the theses of liberalism (and, by extension to our own times, neoliberalism) in order to show that the classical political economists were profoundly wrong even in their own terms. So rather than saying that perfectly functioning markets and the hidden hand can never be constructed and that the marketplace is always distorted by political power, he accepts the liberal utopian vision of perfect markets and the hidden hand in order to show that these would not produce a result beneficial to all, but would instead make the capitalist class incredibly wealthy while relatively impoverishing the workers and everyone else./ This translates into a hypothesis about actually existing capitalism: that the more it is structured and organized according to this utopian liberal or neoliberal vision, the greater the class inequalities." (Harvey. A Companion to Marx's Capital. 52)
"The analysis of Volume I can be read as a sophisticated and damning account of why "there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals:' The ideology of freedom of exchange and liberty of contract gulls us all. This grounds the moral superiority and hegemony of bourgeois political theory and underpins its legitimacy and supposed humanism. But when people enter this free and egalitarian world of market exchange with different resource endowments and different assets, then even minor inequalities, let alone the major divide of class position, get magnified and compounded over time into huge inequalities of influence, wealth and power. When coupled with increasing centralization, this makes for Marx's devastating reversal of the Smithian vision of "the benefit of all" that derives from the hidden hand of market exchange." (Harvey. A Companion to Marx's Capital. 290)
