[OPE-L:4798] Re: Re: Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 28 2001 - 15:07:03 EST


Rakesh, let me try to make sure I understand what you have been
saying.  Maybe there is more agreement than I have appreciated.  I have
been thinking some more about your "retracting criticisms of Fred" and
"conceding defeat".  

You seem to agree with me that, in Marx's theory of prices of production,
the inputs of constant capital and variable capital are already in money
terms and are equal to the price of production of the MP and MS.  In other
words, you agree with me that Marx himself, in his theory of prices of
production, DID NOT FAIL to transform the inputs of constant capital and
variable capital from values to prices of production (as alleged by the
standard criticism of Marx's theory), right?

If so, then this is a very significant agreement.


However, where we disagree is that you argue that Marx made THE OPPOSITE
MISTAKE than in the standard critique.  Rather than failing to transform
the inputs from values to prices of production in the determination of the
prices of production of outputs, Marx failed to make the OPPOSITE
TRANSFORMATION (i.e. an "inverse transformation"); that is, he failed to
transform the prices of production of inputs BACKWARD from prices of
production to values in the determination of the values of outputs.  

Rakesh, do I understand you correctly?

Thanks very much in advance for you clarification.  I look forward to
further discussion and perhaps even to greater agreement.

Comradely,
Fred


P.S.  Based on my (4796) and your (4797), do you also agree that when Marx
discussed the "value" of commodities in Capital (e.g. in Parts 1 and 2 of
Volume 3 that we have been discussing) that he almost always means money
or prices (i.e. the monetary expression of value)?  Do we agree that
Marx's theory of value and surplus-value is about quantities of
money-capital in circulation (M - C ... M'), not about quantities of
labor-time which are only illustrated by money?  Marx's theory of value
and surplus-value may be about "simple" or "direct" prices (that is a
separate issue), but at least it is about prices, right?  Thanks again.  



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST