re 4447 Ajit, let me try to respond to the more substantive comments which you tried to make. > >I have a feeling that you have never studied either economics or >mathematics as a >student, and that's why you don't understand simple arguments. As long as the >assumption that relative prices of commodities are proportional to >their direct and >indirect labor time units, which is what Marx explicitly assumes till the >transformation problem is broached, it does not matter whether the >value numbers >are given in labor units or the units of any commodity taken as the >money commodity Well if we want to the know the labor values of those input commodities, we would have to know the 1/M by which they had been multiplied. Which means we would have to know the value of money. Luckily, Marx fixes it for us. >(By the way, if you have read Marx then you would know that his money is a >commodity and not your green dollars--so your earlier example simply >cannot be a >faithful representation of Marx anyway). Yes, his money is a commodity, but unlike other commodities, Marx has to hold the value of money constant throughout his analysis (which means that he fixes the monetary expression of labor time as well). Why this is so is crucial to an understanding of his theoretical project. Let me draw on a well known authority to have this explained to you: Through prices the fluctuations of a given capital in the course of its circuit become expressed in money, which serves as measure of value required for accounting. And with respect to this measure of value Marx proceeds from the assumption, which is purely fictitious and which forms the basis of his analysis, that the value of money is constant. At first sight this appears to be all the more suprising in the sense that, in his polemic with Ricardo's 'invariable measure of value,' Marx emphasizes that gold can only serve as a measure of value because its own value is variable. But science needs invariable measures: 'the interest in comparing the value of commodities in different historical periods is, indeed, not an *economic* interest as such, but an academic interest.' (Marx) "From the historical surveys of the development of thermometry we know that a reliable measure of heat variations was established through the fundamental work of Amonton, with the discovery of two fundamental points (boiling point and the absolute null point of water) for liquid used as the measure of heat variations. This alone could establish the constant reference points with which it became possible to compare the variable states of heat (Mach) There are no such constant reference points for gold as the measure of value. So an exact measure of the value fluctuations of commodities would be impossible. On the one hand changes in the value of the money commodity may differ from the changes in the value of individual commodity types. In this case we have no exact measure to ascertain how far, say, the rising prices of a given commodity have been caused through changes in its own value and how far through changes in the value of the money commodity. In this case, suppose we were studying variations in the magnitude of surplus value; ten, with a variable value of money, it would be difficult to tell whether a given increment in value (or price) was not something merely apparent and caused purely by changes in the value of money. 'In all these examples there would however have been no actual change in the magnitude of capital value, and only in the money expression of the same value and the same surplus value...there is, therefore, but the appearance of change in the magnitude of employed capital.' (Marx) Alternatively the value of money varies in the same proportion as the values of other commodities, for instance due to general changes in the productivity--a limiting case that is scarcely possible in reality. In that case there would have been enormous absolute changes in the real relations of production and wealth, but these actual changes would be invisible on the surface, because the relative proportions of individual commodity values would remain the same. The price index would not register the actual changes in productivity. Thus it was entirely valid for Marx to substitute the 'power of abstraction' for the missing constant reference points, so falling into line with Galileo's principle: 'measure whatever is measurable, and make the nonemeasurable measurable.' For instance to ascertain the impact of changes in productivity on the formation of value and surplus value, Marx is forced to introduce the assumption that the value of money is constant. This assumption is therefore a methodological postulate that equips Marx with an exact measure for ascertaining values of industrial capital during its circuit. It is an assumption underlying all three volumes of Capital. > But once it is admitted that relative >prices are not proportional to direct and indirect labor time units, then the >question of the measuring rod and the condition of its stability >becomes a serious >theoretical problem. You, and your friends, need to understand this >fundamental >point before taking any further step. Well, Ajit, this is the fundamental point above. The question of the measuring rod and its stability has been a serious theoretical problem from the very beginning, not at the point of the transformation. This is why Marx has to turn money into a purely fictitious constant reference point by holding the value of money constant (and thus the monetary expression of labor time as well). Without the pure invention of such stable measuring rod, Marx would not be able to conduct a purely theoretical analysis of capital. Money is thus not subjected to the same vicissitudes as other commodities, the transformation process included. > The quotation is from chapter 3, where the assumption that >relative prices are proportional to labor-values are throughout >maintained--so the >above assumption, and mind you this is taken explicitly as an assumption, is >absolutely consistent with Allin and my position. If the constant value of money has not been the assumption throughout Capital, how else could have Marx been able to establish that surplus value results from the greater value of the outputs over the inputs; he simply has to rule out an explanation by a change in the value of money, i.e., fix the value of money as constant. > The relevant problem for our case >only begins in chapter 9. As a matter of fact, this chapter is only >concerned with >showing some comparative static relationships between the rate of >profit and the >rate of surplus value. Let's have a separate thread on whether or how Marx used the method of comparative statics. >For the arguments in this chapter, not only the value of >money is held to be constant but also turnover time, productivity of >labor, length >of the working day, intensity of labor, and wages, etc. are also >held constant. So >if we go by your way of reasoning, then not only we will have to rule out your >argument against Allin that technology, that is productivity of labor, keeps >changing during the transformation process will have to be rejected >tout court but >also that many of Marx's theoretical work relating to changes in >technology, length >of the working day, intensity of work, wages, etc. will have to be >expunged, since >according to you they all must be taken as constant in all >circumstances in Marx's >writing. I don't follow the argument. > >It simply cannot remain fixed and constant once you move from >labor-value price >proportionality to their none proportionality. This is a theoretical problem >needing a solution, and the core of the transformation problem. You >don't solve a >problem by assuming that it does not exist. Just like you cannot open a can by >assuming that you have a can opener. Try opening a can with an >assumed can opener, >and you will know what I'm talking about. Cheers, ajit sinha If Marx has constructed money as a constant reference point, why can it not remain exactly that after the transformation or any other change? I do not understand your argument. Please explain. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST