re Fred's 4499 >Hi Rakesh, > >It seems to me that you are making a mistake with units of measure in your >logic below. You say that the value of commodities "is the direct and >indirect labor-time embodied" in them. Yes. Which is then multiplied by a given and fixed monetary expression of labor value to give price--M'. It is assumed to be the same monetary expression of labor value by which the input means of production and wage goods were multiplied to arrive at cost price (M). > But then you say that this value >of commodities is "resolved" into the monetary quantities of c + v + s. I >presume that by "resolved" you mean divided into component parts, >right? (At any rate, that is what Marx meant by "resolved" in the >passages you quote from Part 7 of Volume 3 and related drafts.) What I mean is simple: of the total commodities' value or price (which is its monetary expression as given by a monetary expression of labor which is held constant and fixed by Marx), Marx then resolves part of it into the cost of production of that commodity (what the constant and variable capital cost him in *price terms*) and the rest into surplus value which is therefore M' minus M. What I am saying though is that M' is not deterimed by adding up cost price and surplus value, as you suggest. M' is rather determined by multiplying the indirect and direct or objectified labor embodied in the commodity by the monetary expression of labor value. > But the >components of value are in terms of quantities of money. Therefore, the >whole value that is divided up must also be in terms of quantities of >money. Right. Marx fixes a monetary expression of labor value by which total value is 'coverted' into a money sum. That represents the price of a commodity, which is in your language "proportional" to the direct and indirect labor embodied therein. That is, the greater or lesser the monetary expression of labor value, the greater or lesser the price of the commodity. So in your terms if the monetary expression of labor value were to change, everything would change proportionally--the monetary expression of total value, the monetary expression of the value of the means of production, the monetary expression of the value of the wage goods, the monetary expression of the value of the surplus product. One assumes a constant monetary expression of labor in coverting the commodity's value into price. So I don't have mixed up units; I have a fixed and constant value of money or monetary expression of labor value which enables the conversion of the total value of the output into a money sum which can be then resolved into the monetary components of cost PRICE and surplus value which as M' minus M is also a monetary category. > How can one divide a quantity of labor-time into quantities of >money? Am I missing something? Because, as you have been saying, Marx has held constant and fixed the monetary expression of labor value which enables a conversion of a quantity of labor time into a quantity of money! All the best, Rakesh > >P.S. You also make some good points in this post and other recent posts, >which I hope to respond to soon. Thanks!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST