[ show plain text ]
This is a response to Rakesh's (3668) in which he presents what he calls
"decisive textual evidence" that "Marx defined constant capital not as the
money laid out for means of production, but rather as the value of the
means of production ... ." This "decisive textual evidence" is two
sentences from Chapter 12 of Volume 3 ("Supplementary Remarks"), which I
will discuss below.
But the first point to make is that the most significant textual evidence
about the meaning of constant capital and variable capital comes from
Chapter 8 of Volume 1, not from Chapter 12 of Volume 3. As I have
discussed in several posts, Chapter 8 of Volume 1 is the key, prominent
chapter in which Marx first introduced and defined his unique concepts of
constant capital and variable. Marx prepared this chapter for publication
twice and no doubt was very careful about the definition of these key
concepts. In this chapter, Marx did indeed define constant capital as the
"money laid out for means of production." (p. 317). Nothing is said in
this key, defining paragraph in Chapter 8 about the labor-time embodied in
the means of production. To be sure, the money-capital "laid out for means
of production" may be assumed to be DETERMINED by the labor-time embodied
in the means of production, but this is a separate issue from the
DEFINITION of constant capital, which is clearly in terms of the "money
laid out for means of production." Further evidence to support this
monetary interpretation of constant capital (and variable capital) is that
Marx continually, throughout the three volumes of Capital, refers to
constant capital in money terms and gives numerical examples in money terms.
My guess from previous posts is that Rakesh's interpretation of Marx's
definition of constant capital in Chapter 8 is something like that it is
based on the assumption that prices = values, and therefore no longer
applies when prices are not equal to values in Volume 3.
I am not sure what this means. Does it mean that the definition of
constant capital changes from Volume 1 to Volume 3, i.e. that constant
capital is defined in terms of money in Volume 1 and in terms of
labor-times in Volume 3? I find it highly unlikely that Marx would change
the definition of his key concept of constant capital from Volume 1 to
Volume 3, without a single discussion of this very significant change. It
may indeed be that the MAGNITUDE of constant capital might change from
Volume 1 to Volume 3 (I don't think so), but surely the DEFINITION of
constant capital does NOT change.
Or perhaps Rakesh means that the definition of constant capital is really
always in terms of the labor-time embodied in the means of production, even
in Volume 1, but since this labor-time quantity was expressed in Volume 1
as a quantity of money, constant capital was defined in Volume 1 in terms
of money. I also find this highly unlikely, that when Marx said in Chapter
8 that constant capital is the money-capital laid out for means of
production, he really meant, without telling readers anything about it,
that constant capital is really defined as the the labor-time embodied in
the means of production.
Or, Rakesh, do you have a different interpretation of Marx's definition in
Chapter 8? If so, please clarify.
I think it much more likely that Marx meant what he said in Chapter 8:
that constant capital is defined as the money-capital laid out for means of
production. And I think this basic definition remained the same
throughout the three volumes of Capital.
Now let's consider Rakesh's two sentences from Chapter 12 of Volume 3,
which he claims is "decisive evidence" that constant capital is defined as
the value of the means of production. (I also include the preceeding
sentence that I think helps to clarify the meaning; Rakesh's two sentences
are in square brackets.):
"It is quite possible, accordingly for the cost price to diverge from the
VALUE SUM OF THE ELEMENTS of which this component of the price of
production is composed, even in the case of commodities produced with
capitals of average composition. [Let us asssume that the average
composition is 80c + 20v. It is possible now that, for the actual
individual capitals that are composed in this way, the 80c may be greater
or less than the value of C, since this C is composed of commodities whose
prices of production are different from their values."] (C. III: 209)
But, Rakesh, the 80c IS ITSELF THE CONSTANT CAPITAL, as one part of the
cost price, which is defined in terms of money. This 80c is referred to as
constant capital repeatedly in Parts 1 and 2 of Volume 3. Please also look
again at Chapter 1 of Volume 3, where Marx introduced and defined the
concept of cost price (which you have emphasized in other posts). Here the
cost price is clearly and explicitly defined as the sum of constant capital
and variable capital, all of which are expressed repeatedly in terms of money.
Furthermore, the composition of capital is defined as the relative
proportion of constant capital and variable capital, right? Well, the
average composition of capital is expressed in your first sentence as 80c +
20v. Therefore, the 80c must be the constant capital. If 80c is not the
constant capital, then what is it? And why is the average composition of
capital expressed in terms of it?
Now, if constant capital also means something besides 80c in the same
sentence (the value of the means of production), then Marx would be
extraordinarily confused. He would be saying in effect that the constant
capital may be greater or less than the constant capital. I don't think
Marx was that confused. I think what Marx meant to say (following the
first sentence) is that the constant capital 80c is different from the
value of the ELEMENTS of constant capital (i.e. the value of means of
production), which is of course generally the case.
This interpretation is further supported by the next paragraph after the
one quoted by Rakesh, which is extremely interesting. Here Marx said:
"Yet this possibility in no way affects the correctness of the principles
put forward for commodities of average composition. the quantity of profit
that falls to the share of these commodities is equal to the quantity of
surplus-value contained in them. For the above capital, with its
composition of capital of 80c + 20v, for example, THE IMPORTANT THING AS
FAR AS THE DETERMINATION OF SURPLUS-VALUE IS CONCERNED IS NOT WHETHER THESE
FIGURES ARE THE EXPRESSION OF ACTUAL VALUES, BUT RATHER WHAT THEIR MUTUAL
RELATIONSHIP IS; i.e. that v is one-fifth of the total capital and c is
four-fifths. As soon as this is the case, as assumed above, the
surplus-value v produced is equal to the average profit, the price of
production = cost price + profit = k + p = k + s, which is equal in
practice to the commodity's value."
It seems to me that this paragraph says:
1. The composition of capital is again described as 80c + 20v. Therefore,
80c refers to the constant caital.
2. The "important thing" with respect to the determination of
SURPLUS-VALUE is NOT whether 80c + 20v are equal to the value of the means
of production, but rather what their actual magnitudes are and their
relative proportions.
3. Most strikingly, Marx states that the COST PRICE (k) (which is the sum
of constant capital and variable capital) IS THE SAME for the determination
of BOTH the VALUES and the PRICES OF PRODUCTION of commodities. In Marx's
own algebraic notation:
value = k + s
ppd = k + p [ppd stands for price of production]
If k is defined in terms of money for the determination of prices of
production (as Rakesh acknowledges), then this must also be true for the
determination of value, as I have argued.
4. Finally, for individual capitals of AVERAGE COMPOSITION, value = price
of production (this is the "principle put forward for commodities of
average composition" mentioned in the first sentence). This equality of
value and price of production for commodities of average composition is
POSSIBLE ONLY IF k IS THE SAME for the determination of both value and
price of production, i.e. if k is defined in terms of money and is equal to
the sum of the price of production (not the value) of the means of
production and the means of subsistence.
Marx made these last two very important points (that k is the same for the
determination of both value and price of production and that value = price
of production for commodities of average composition) in several passages
in Chapter 9 of Volume 3 (C.III: 263 and 264-65 and the famous "missing
paragraph" that OPEL listmember Alejandro Ramos discovered, that is
included in Marx's manuscript, but Engels inexplicably omitted from his
published version). I discuss these important passages in my "sympathetic
critique of the new solution" paper that you (Rakesh) went to the library
to read last week (in subsection 1.b on "prices of production").
Therefore, I conclude, contrary to Rakesh, that these passages, along with
the original definition in Chapter 8 of Volume 1 and the continual
references throughout Capital to constant capital in terms of money,
provide "decisive evidence" that: (1) constant capital is defined in terms
of money, as the money-capital used to purchase the means of production,
and (2) the magnitude of constant capital is the same for the determination
of both values and prices of production, i.e. constant capital does not
change in the determination of prices of production in Volume 3. The same
conclusions of course also apply to variable capital as well. This is why
Marx did NOT "fail to transform the inputs from values to prices of
production."
I am very sorry that Rakesh will soon end his active participation in OPEL
for a while. I think this discussion has been very productive and I wish
it could continue. Perhaps we can continue off-line at a slower pace.
I would also of course be interested in what other listmembers have to say
about these issues.
Comradely,
Fred
P.S. I will probably quickly check my email tomorrow, but will not have
much time for reply, and will be out for the rest of the week (I am going
white-water rafting with my son).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT