Hi Rakesh, I want to respond to what you have called your "main point" in your critique of my interpretation of Marx's theory. You seem to think that, according to my interpretation, the magnitude of the cost price will change as a result of the transformation of values into prices of production. This change of the cost price necessitates a choice between two "invariance conditions": either total value = total price of production or total surplus-value = total profit. You argue for the former condition, and argue that the latter condition implies an "adding up" theory of value (i.e. that an increase in the cost price causes an increase in total price). But, Rakesh, this argument is completely irrelevant to my interpretation of Marx's theory. According to my interpretation, the cost price DOES NOT CHANGE as a result of the determination of prices of production. Since the cost price does not change, there is no question of having to choose between whether a change of the cost price causes a change of total value or of surplus-value. The cost price remains the same and so does the total value and the total surplus-value. According to my interpretation (as I have argued before), NONE of the aggregate variabels change as a result of the determination of prices of production in Volume 3. Since none of the aggregate magnitudes change, ALL of the aggregate equalities are true simultaneously. Your argument is against the interpretations of Bortkiewitz and Sweezy and Meek and Allin and Duncan (for them the cost price does change; actually for Duncan, only the constant capital). You are arguing with Allin, et al. about the appropriate "invariance condition" in the transformation of values into prices of production. But according to my interpretation, there is no need to choose between these two invariance conditions. Both conditions are satisfied simultaneously. Now, you of course disagree with my interpretation that the cost price does not change in the determination of prices of production, and we can continue to discuss this point. But all your arguments about which invariance condition and the adding up theory of value (your "main point") are irrelevant to my interpretation. Do you see what I mean? I look forward to further discussion. Comradely, Fred P.S. The passages that you quote concerning Marx's critique of the "adding-up" theory of value are mostly from Part 7 of Volume 3. It is certainly true that Marx argues in these passages that, if wages rise, then surplus-value will fall. However, the rise in wages that Marx is talking about in these passages has nothing to do with the transformation of values into prices of production. The rise in wages happens due to other causes. Marx explicitly stated at the beginning of Chapter 49 that he was ignoring in this analysis the distinction between values and prices of production: "For the analysis now following, we can ignore the distinction between value and price of production, since this disappears whenever we are concerned with the value of labor's total annual product, i.e. the value of the product of the total social capital." (p. 971)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST