Gracias a los esfuerzos de marxistas a lo largo de todo el mundo, progresivamente tenemos a nuestra disposición, más obras de Marx traducidas en diferentes idiomas para su consulta. Recientemente, gracias a la editorial Brill y a la Revista 
Karl Marx has long been criticized for his so-called ecological “Prometheanism”—an extreme commitment to industrialism, irrespective of natural limits. This view, supported even by a number of Marxists, such as Ted Benton and Michael Löwy, has become increasingly hard to accept after a series of careful and stimulating analyses of the ecological dimensions of Marx’s thought, elaborated in Monthly Review and elsewhere. The Prometheanism debate is not a mere philological issue, but a highly practical one, as capitalism faces environmental crises on a global scale, without any concrete solutions. Any such solutions will likely come from the various ecological movements emerging worldwide, some of which explicitly question the capitalist mode of production. Now more than ever, therefore, the rediscovery of a Marxian ecology is of great importance to the development of new forms of left strategy and struggle against global capitalism. 
Resumen
Replying, in the Postface to the second edition of Capital, to the accusation of Hegelianism leveled at him by critics of his publication, Marx insisted that his “dialectical method is, in its foundations, not only different from the Hegelian, but the exact opposite of it.” At the same time he avowed himself “the pupil of that mighty thinker,” acknowledging that he had “even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him” (Marx 1976a, 102-3). It is evident that this verbal coquetry cannot be the measure of Marx’s pupilship. To begin with, his initial writings are largely dominated by a determined struggle with Hegelian idealism. And, more to our point, his engagement in the project of a critique of political economy in 1857 involved a second phase of attention to Hegel, with a new appreciation of the “mighty thinker.” 
Este artículo pretende mostrar que el concepto de valor intrínseco –valor como distinto de valor de cambio– se convirtió en un elemento importante de la crítica de la economía política realizada por Karl Marx
El contexto es el de la dictadura franquista. Sacristán nace en 1925, dentro de una dictadura, la de Primo de Rivera. A sus seis años llega la República, el gran acontecimiento de renovación cultural y política de España. Pero la renovación da un vuelco en 1936, con el estallido de la Guerra Civil, cuando Sacristán tiene 11 años. La victoria de los militares golpistas, cuando Sacristán ha cumplido 14 años, significa que vuelve la dictadura, esta vez sobre una España en escombros, los producidos por tres años de terrible guerra civil. En este contexto de país en ruinas, dominado por militares, eclesiásticos y falangistas, termina su bachillerato, y, como a tantos españoles de su generación, le tocará vivir la dictadura de Franco durante 40 años. Sólo podrá vivir nueve años de posfranquismo, que tampoco le trató muy bien, ya que la conferencia de rectores de universidad se negó a concederle una cátedra en 1980. Sacristán llegó a catedrático en 1984, un año antes de su muerte.
Resumen: La razón principal por la que se ha rechazado la teoría de Marx durante el último siglo ha sido el infame ‘problema de la transformación’. Los críticos argumentan que Marx, en su teoría de los precios de producción ‘falló en transformar los valores’ de los insumos de capital constante y capital variable a precios de producción y por consiguiente la teoría de Marx está incompleta y es inconsistente en términos lógicos. Este trabajo argumenta que Marx no falló en ‘transformar los valores de los insumos’ porque no se supone que los insumos de capital constante y capital variable sean transformados. Al contrario, se supone que el capital constante y el capital variablepermanecen iguales en la determinación tanto de los valores como de los precios de producción – las cantidades reales de capital-dinero adelantado para comprar los medios de producción y la fuerza de trabajo al principio del circuito de capital dinero (D – M – D’) que son tomados como dados – y por consiguiente la teoría de los precios de Marx está completa y es lógicamente coherente. Se presenta un resumen algebraico de esta interpretación “monetaria” de la teoría de Marx en la Sección 3, así como ejemplos de la evidencia textual que apoyan esta interpretación “monetaria” en la Sección 4. 
En el programa más reciente de 
The objective of the following observations is to offer a rough overview of central ways of reading Marx’s theory. These are to be presented – by means of a few selected topics – as Marxisms that can be relatively clearly delimited from one another, and the history of their reception and influence will be evaluated with regard to the common-sense understanding of “Marxist theory.”
A distinction will be made between the hitherto predominant interpretation of Marx, primarily associated with political parties (traditional Marxism, Marxism in the singular, if you will), and the dissident, critical forms of reception of Marx (Marxisms in the plural), with their respective claims of a “return to Marx.” The first interpretation is understood as a product and process of a restricted reading of Marx, in part emerging from the “exoteric” layer of Marx’s work, which updates traditional paradigms in political economy, the theory of history, and philosophy. Systematized and elevated to a doctrine by Engels, Kautsky, et al, it succumbs to the mystifications of the capitalist mode of production and culminates in the apologetic science of Marxism-Leninism. The other two interpretations, specifically Western Marxism as well as the German neue Marx-Lektüre (“new reading of Marx”), usually explore the “esoteric” content of Marx’s critique and analysis of society, often consummated outside of institutionalized, cumulative research programs, by isolated actors in the style of an “underground Marxism.”
In order to characterize both ways of reading, some strongly truncated theses, limited to a few aspects, must suffice. In particular the ambitious proposition, first formulated by Karl Korsch, of an “application of the materialist conception of history to the materialist conception of history itself” – one that goes beyond the mere presentation of intellectual history, towards an immanent theoretical critique that critically considers the connection between historical forms of praxis and theoretical formations of Marxism – cannot be carried out here. In addition, a consideration of those readings which are critical of Marx or Marxism can also be disregarded here, insofar as their picture of Marx usually corresponds to that of traditional Marxism.
I therefore begin with the hegemonic interpretative model of traditional Marxism, and only at the end of my presentation will I conclude with a few positive determinations of what I regard as the fundamental systematic intention of Marx’s work. I do this primarily because a differentiated reading of Marx’s work can only be gained in the course of the learning processes of Western Marxism and the neue Marx-Lektüre. Leer más…
Existen dos vertientes generales dentro de la teoría económica marxista por la manera en que determinan los conceptos más relevantes (el valor, los precios, la tasa de ganancia, etc.): la simultaneista y la temporalista.
marxismocritico.com 