On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Allin Cottrell wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Fred B. Moseley wrote: > > > Medio's presentation is perhaps the clearest expression of this > > interpretation that "Volume 1 is about labor-values only". He explicitly > > calls his system of equations (2) the "value system". The variables > > determined in his "value system" are the labor-values of individual > > commodities and the rate of surplus-value (as a ratio of > > labor-values). Money and prices do not appear in the "value > > system" equations at all. > > > > Paul Z., Paul C., Allin, and other proponents of the "two system" > > interpretation: is Medio's interpretation more or less what you > > have in mind by "Volume 1 is about labor-values only"? > > This is a bit of a "when did you stop beating your wife?" sort > of question. I certainly didn't mean the question that way. I thought that is the way you and others have interpreted Volume 1. Maybe I overstated. Maybe I should not have said "Volume 1 is about labor-values ONLY", but rather "the MAIN variables determined in Volume 1, and the variables that are taken as given in Volume 3 (e.g. in the determination of prices of production), are labor-values, like in Medio's "value system". Is that a correct characterization of your interpretation? > I agree with Medio insofar as I think you can > derive commodity values and the rate of surplus value from > direct labour coefficients and input-output coefficients, and > that (in principle) prices play no part in this sort of > calculation. But the question is: do you think this is what Volume 1 is mainly about? > But I don't think vol. 1 is "about labour values only": that > would be an odd claim when Marx spends quite a lot of time > talking about money. Why do you think Marx talks a lot about money in Volume 1? Are money variables theoretically determined in Volume 1, or do they just serve as indirect illustrations of labor-values? If money variables are determined, which variables? > I do think, however, that he assumes > prices = values throughout vol. 1 (other than in a few contexts > where he explicitly states otherwise) so that his use of pounds, > shillings as so on can be taken a shorthand for quanta of labour > time. Again, the question is: what is Volume 1 mainly about? What are the main variables determined? You seem to suggest that the main variables determined are labor-time quantities, and money quantities merely serve as "shorthand" for these labor-time quantities; i.e. these money quantities are not in themselves theoretically determined. Do I understand you correctly? Allin, thanks a lot for your response and I look forward to further discussion. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST