Moseley makes this argument:
“(4) the initial money capital M at the beginning of the circuit of money capital is taken as given, as initial data, both in the macro theory of the total surplus-value and in the micro theory of the individual parts of surplus-value…”
Marx does indeed argue that money capital is the start of the circuit of capital. However, he does not begin with money capital. The very existence of capitalist production — money, the means of production and labor power — must first be explained. All three, (money, means and labor power), are commodities whose existence in the market presumes commodity production (i.e., production based on exchange value). Marx therefore begins not with the circuit of capital, but with the commodity.
Of course, Moseley doesn’t agree with Marx that money must be a commodity. Therefore, it doesn’t matter to him that all of the categories of capital — money, means and labor power — have their genesis in a single undifferentiated form. Fortunately for us, Marx believed money had to explained before it could serve as the starting point of the circuit of capital, just as he believed the appearance of labor power on the market as a commodity for sale had to be explained — not given.
Marx, in fact, appears to think his account of the origin of money is rather clever and important:
“Every one knows, if he knows nothing else, that commodities have a value form common to them all, and presenting a marked contrast with the varied bodily forms of their use values. I mean their money form. Here, however, a task is set us, the performance of which has never yet even been attempted by bourgeois economy, the task of tracing the genesis of this money form, of developing the expression of value implied in the value relation of commodities, from its simplest, almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling money-form. By doing this we shall, at the same time, solve the riddle presented by money.”
In contrast to bourgeois economy, which took (and still takes) money as a given, Marx thought it needed to be explained. He therefore devoted the entire first section of Capital v1 to explaining the origin of the money that forms the starting point of his analysis of capital.
By contrast, Moseley wants us to simply assume the existence of money. Once we assume it already exists, he assures us, the transformation problem disappears:
“In this book, it will be argued that, if Marx’s logical method is interpreted in this way, then there is no ‘transformation problem’ in Marx’s theory…”