Re Paul, 4310: Paul, Rakesh wrote: "It is obvious that Marx knew perfectly well in vol 1 that commodities do not exchange at value." Your first quotation shows that this is true: "We have in fact. assumed that prices = values. We shall, however, see, in Book Ill., that even in the case of average prices the assumption cannot be made in this very simple manner." So, Marx did know in Vol. I that, as Rakesh says, commodities don't exchange at value. Hence, I don't see your point. Besides this, in your quotation from Ch 17 he allows for a deviation between price and value in the case of labor power: "I assume ... (2) that the price of labour-power rises occasionally above its value, but never sinks below it." I think the point here is if one want to make from these symplifing assumptions the textual evidence for working out a self contained "value model" from which presumably another self contained "price model" will be later "derived" à la Bortkiewicz et al. Do you think this is what we should do with these quotations? Alejandro R. ------------------- At 20:41 26/10/00, you wrote: >Rakesh, Several months ago, replying to Andrew, I posted [3738] a number >of quotations from Volume 1 showing that Marx knew exactly what he was >assuming for his Volume 1 discussion, i.e, all industries operate at your >average (the standard deviation of compositions of capital is zero)! > > "The calculations given in the text are intended merely as >illustrations. We have in fact. assumed that prices = values. We shall, >however, see, in Book Ill., that even in the case of average prices the >assumption cannot be made in this very simple manner." (Chapter 9, fn. at >end of Section 1) > > "our assumption, that all commodities, including labour-power, are >bought and sold at their full value" (Chapter 12, third paragraph) > > "I assume (1) that commodities are sold at their value; (2) that the >price of labour-power rises occasionally above its value, but never sinks >below it." (Chapter 17, second paragraph) > > "On the one hand, then, we assume that the capitalist sells at their >value the commodities he has produced, without concerning ourselves either >about the new forms that capital assumes while in the sphere of >circulation, or about the concrete conditions of reproduction hidden under >these forms." (Part VII, The Accumulation of Capital, fourth paragraph) > >Paul Z. > >*********************************************************************** >Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at >******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka > > >Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU> said, on 10/25/00: > >>So if in vol 1, Marx equates the surplus value produced by a firm with >>the profit it appropriates, he obviously has in mind "an average >>industry" which Meek claims is similar to Sraffa's basic industry. It is >>obvious that Marx knew perfectly well in vol 1 that commodities do not >>exchange at value. > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST