In OPE-L 4341, Paul Z. wrote "I don't see this particular discussion ["price-value equivalence" vs. "price = value"] as being of significance ..." I think there are a few reasons why it is significant. One, in recent years people have begun to claim that the "transformation problem" is about the difference between monetary and labor-time sums. This is an elemental misunderstanding of Marx AND of Bortkiewicz-Sweezy. Two, due to the alleged "transformation problem," i.e. the difficulty they've had in relating value to price, some folks (e.g., Morishima, followed by Dumenil and Levy) have begun to claim that values have nothing to do with (money) prices; they are by definition exclusively labor-time magnitudes and their exclusive function is to measure the amount of labor required for production -- not to explain prices at all. Three, what's at issue is the reality of value as distinct from price. To be able to speak of prices as resulting from the redistribution in the market of already-produced value, values need to be understood as (a) having a monetary expression but (b) a magnitude that differs from the redistributed magnitude. It might seem that comparison of value ratios with price ratios would do the trick, but that doesn't really work because the *totals* also matter. If money prices are simply values distributed differently, total price must equal total value (and total profit must equal total surplus-value). Paul: "... but I do think the abstraction in Volume 1 from variations across industries of differing compositions of capital is of significance." I've been trying to indicate that Marx doesn't abstract from unequal compositions of capital in Vol. I. He abstracts (from Ch. 6 onward, and then not always) from price-value deviations. Equal value compositions are one factor that, together with others, could ensure that prices = values, but there are other ways of obtaining that equality. E.g., one could let profit rates differ. Marx doesn't even do that. He simply stipulates the equality as an assumption. One reason why this is important is that, if one asserts that he's dealing with the whole social capital when explaining the origin of surplus-value, one misses the fact that he's locating the origin in the production process of an *individual* (i.e., each individual) capital, and one begins to think of profit as an aggregate phenomenon, which depends on a whole complex of conditions and interdependencies. For someone like yourself who emphasizes class struggle, I wouldn't think that's an attractive vantage point. Andrew Kliman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST