Fred writes in 4798: >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? Yes. >If so, then this is a very significant agreement. I think so too. > > >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? So much so that you have articulated my point better than I have. I have also accepted your earlier description of my interpretation as an inverse transformation problem. >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? I think you are correct here as well. > 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. Absolutely. Comradely, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST