> > >I don't find cogent the interpretation of that passage as a restatment >Tugan/Bortkiewicz view (i.e. there are two completely separated "systems", >etc.) because, if Marx were thinking in that terms when he defines the >value and price of production of average commodities (*just 20 lines or so >after this passage* --Capital III, pp. 308-309, Penguin), he should have >written: Alejandro, I want to clarify that I reject such dualism as well, and for the rejection of such I am very indebted to you, Carchedi, Fred, Andrew and others. what i am saying in defense of the an iterative solution which accepts the winternitz invariance condition (total simple price=total price of production) is that the equality between the mass of surplus value and the mass of profit can be maintained in each iteration including the last one without making surplus value as it is defined in the original simple price scheme invariant throughout the iteration. That is, the equality need not be an invariance condition. *Surplus value for me is never defined in a pure value account that exists in parallel to a price account. The dual systems approach is not Marx's.* The mass of surplus value is always the residual once cost prices (M) have been taken from the final prices (M') in the system as a whole. That is, surplus value is defined as M', less M, not C', less C. Since the complete transformation aims at transforming the inputs and thereby the cost prices, it must change in an inverse direction the mass of surplus value as the mass of surplus value *is* the difference between output prices and cost prices. Of course this mass will tend to have been distributed in such a way that the profit rate equalizes. The question then becomes whether it is possible to hold on to an exploitation theory if the mass of surplus value itself changes as a result of a complete transformation carried out in iterative steps. And I argue yes, sure, it is. all the best, Rakesh >value = value of c + value of v + surplus value, >production price = price of c + price of v + profit. > >Here you would have your "double divergence": 1. "value of c + v" is not >equal to "price of c + v" and 2. "surplus value" is not equal to "profit". > >Instead, Marx writes: > >value = k + surplus value, >production price = k + profit, > >k = cost-*price*, a "transformed magnitude". > >Therefore, no trace of "double divergence" in a passage which is logically >and textually the immediate continuation of that you mention. Is this >inconsistency possible in a thinker such Marx? I don't believe this because >I prefer to give some credit to the author. So, it seems interesting to me >to explore another possible meaning of the "double divergence" text, >instead of that one is inferred within the Tugan/Bortkiewicz tradition. > >Abrazos, > >A.R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST