Duncan writes [#4099] > It seems to me that the temporalist claim has to rest > on an indirect argument that it is consistent with some of the > conclusions Marx drew (the conservation of total value, constant > capital, and the profit rate in the movement from the embodied labor > accounting to price accounting) rather than on direct evidence. The > problem with trying to establish an interpretation through an > indirect argument of this kind is that there might be some different > interpretation that also preserves those conclusions. This is a fair point in itself, but there don't seem to be many rivals for this distinction. ... > "As the price of production of a commodity can diverge from its > value, so the cost price of a commodity, in which the price of > production of other commodities is involved can also stand above or > below the portion of its total value that is formed by the value of > the means of production going into it. It is necessary to bear in > mind this modified significance of the cost price, and therefore to > bear in mind too that if the cost price of a commodity is equated > with the value of the means of production used up in producing it, it > is always possible to go wrong." > > I find it very difficult to reconcile this kind of language with the > idea that Marx made no distinction between the labor embodied in the > constant capital and the money value of the constant capital at > prices of production. > Marx's comment here seems to say no more than "be careful about which -- of cost price and value of means of production used up -- you identify as being the value of the inputs" (and by implication "choose the cost price", according to Fred and TSSers). Julian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EST