Rakesh (OPE-L:4227), what do you mean by "the labor theory of value"? The main logical problem with your response is that you beg the question. You *assume* that Marx advocated (your version of) "the labor theory of value." You then reject an interpretation of the textual evidence, not because it is inconsistent with the textual evidence, but because it is inconsistent with your presupposition. I think you need to abandon your presupposition. : Otherwise, why wouldn't anything with a P--say purchase of a : waterfall as energy source--transfer value in accordance with the : value of the money need to procure it? Leaving aside the issue of rent and the reference to the value of money, which I think is misplaced, I think the sum of value that needs to be invested for an input *is* transferred by virtue of the input's productive consumption, whether or not the input itself has any value. I wrote: : >I also think that, in Marx's theory, the amount of value that is : >transferred to the product is the used-up constant capital value. See, : >e.g., Vol. I, Ch. 8. Rakesh responds: : But as Paul Z and I both pointed out, p-v divergence is not allowed : there. So the question we are debating could not then arise. I disagree. Marx gives a general definition of constant capital in Ch. 8. He calls it a definition. The definition applies whether or not prices equal values because he nowhere restricts the definition to the case in which prices equal values. Moreover, when he does finally focus on price-value deviations, he confirms that the amount of value that is transferred to the product is the used-up constant capital value, not the value of the means of production, and he cautions us not to "go wrong" by equating the two (Ch. 9, Vol. III). How much more explicit could the man be? Rakesh: "Don't get the hence." The condensed version of what I wrote is "the used-up constant capital value diverges from the value of its (material) elements. ... the amount of value that is transferred to the product is the used-up constant capital value. ... Hence, the amount of value that is transferred to the product diverges from the value of the (material) elements of the constant capital." The conclusion follows necessarily from the two premises, no? Rakesh: "We obviously have to map out the different ways in which the term constant capital is being used." I think this would be very helpful. I suspect that in works finalized for publication, and most of the rest of the time as well, Marx does not refer to the means of production as constant capital. He will call them the elements of constant capital, but not, to my recollection, constant capital. But the most important thing is to study carefully the *definitions* of things like constant capital and cost-price. I wrote: "The value of the used-up means of production is NOT what is transferred." Rakesh replied: "Of course I think it IS what is transferred. What are we to do?" I think you need to explain how the "always possible to go wrong" statement could be compatible with your interpretation. Far more importantly, you need to check to see whether your interpretation can replicate Marx's theoretical conclusions. Also, since you agree that the value of a commodity is k + s, and that k doesn't equal the value of the means of production and subsistence, you *must* agree that the sum of value transferred diverges from the value of the means of production. Well, not "must," but it's illogical if you don't. Andrew Kliman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST