Rakesh, 1) Marx is saying in the footnote (just prior to chapter 6, Vol. 1) that over the 'long period of time' there is an 'average price' that is 'ultimately' determined by value. He explicitly makes clear that value does not equal average price - he clearly has in mind prices of production. Moreover, he mentions Smith and Ricardo in just this context without any qualification regarding their centre of gravity concept. I'm not sure how much stronger textual evidence you can get. I am doubtful as to the validity of this 'empirical average' notion but I can't read the footnote any other way. I would be quite happy to drop any idea that this 'regulating price' exhibits stability over periods of months and years. I don't think we lose anything in dropping this view (the logic remains). It seems to be contingent on more concrete aspects whether or not such stability is displayed, and I don't have the knowledge of these more concrete aspects. Two relevant further points: - The footnote is not intimately connected with the chapter (btw, my reading of this chapter does not see marx as making any dodgy assumptions re interest and merchant capital). This is why it is a footnote. - One thing that maybe throwing our discussion is your, to my mind, strange notion that Walrasian equilibrium and Ricardian / Smithian 'natural prices' have a great deal in common. I'm no historian of economic thought but I would have thought the two are entirely distinct. I'm certain that modern day 'general equilibrium' prices are completely different to Smith and Ricardo's natural prices. Eg. there is absolutely nothing in standard general equilibrium analysis to tell us the relation of it's exchange ratios to reality. And the whole GE thing does seem irredeemably static. On a different matter: My interpretation of Ilyenkov is a minority one. But let me just say that my interpretation is at odds with your 'successive approximations' reading of 'Capital'. Ilyenkov sees Marx as 'developing' the law of value. This is an immanent development not an ongoing setting and relaxing of arbitrary assumptions. I mention this because you often invoke Ilyenkov re the transformation problem (and don't get me wrong, I am delighted that you do, even if I don't agree with your interpretation). Many thanks, Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST