Hi Rakesh, Thanks for your last two posts. There are several points I would like to respond to, but this post will focus again on the key paragraph on pp. 264-65 of Volume 3 that you continue to emphasize as "unequivocal" textual evidence to support your interpretation. This paragraph begins as follows: "The development given above also involves a modification in the determination of a commodity's cost price. It was originally assumed that the cost price of a commodity equaled the value of the commodities consumed in production. But for the buyer of a commodity, it is the price of production that constitutes its cost price and can thus enter into forming the price of another commodity." You interpret these sentences to mean that the magnitude of the cost price changes from the value of the commodities consumed in production to the prices of production of these commodities. I interpret these sentences to mean that what changes is not the magnitude of the cost price, but Marx's explanation of the determination of a given fixed cost price. This given fixed cost price is first partially explained as equal to the value of the consumed commodities, and then more fully explained as equal to the price of production of these commodities. I have argued my interpretation is supported by explicit statements in each of the previous three paragraphs - including the "missing paragraph" discovered by Alejandro R. - in which Marx said that the COST PRICE IS THE SAME for the determination of both the value of commodities and the prices of production of commodities. Marx also said the same thing in Chapter 12 of Volume 3, in one of his "supplementary remarks" (p. 309). I have also argued my interpretation is supported later in the same paragraph in which Marx calls the cost price a "given precondition". It seems to me that a "given precondition" does not change. What I had not realized until I reread this paragraph tonight is that, after Marx called the cost price a "given precondition", he went on in this same paragraph to say again in effect that the COST PRICE IS THE SAME for the determination of both values and prices of production. Please notice how many times Marx says in the following five sentences that "THE cost price of a commodity" or "ITS cost price". There is no hint that there might be TWO cost prices - one in terms of values and the other in terms of prices of production. Rather, THE SAME cost price is first related to the value of commodities and then to their price of production. Marx said (emphasis added): "THE cost price of a commodity is a GIVEN PRECONDITION, independent of his, the capitalist's, production, while the result of his production is a commodity that contains surplus-value, and therefore an excess value over an above ITS cost price. As a general rule, the principle that THE cost price of a commodity is less than its value has been transformed in practice into the principle that ITS cost price is less than the price of production. For the total social capital, where price of production equals value, this assertion is identical with the earlier one that THE cost price is less than the value. Even though it has a different meaning for the particular spheres of production, the basic fact remains that, taking the social capital as a whole, THE cost price of the commodities that this produces is less than their value, or than the price of production which is identical with this value for the total mass of commodities." Marx does not say in these sentences that the magnitude of the cost price changes, but rather that THE SAME COST PRICE is first compared to the value of commodities, and then is compared to the price of production of commodities. This is especially clear in the last three sentences about the total social capital. Therefore, I argue that my interpretation of the sentences at the beginning of this paragraph is supported, not only by what Marx said in the paragraphs immediately preceding, but also in the rest of the very same paragraph. Rakesh's interpretation, on the other hand, is contradicted by all this surrounding textual evidence. Furthermore, I have argued that my interpretation is further supported by: 1. numerous passages (which I have documented in several papers) in which Marx explicitly stated that the initial M in the circulation of capital (M-C ... etc.) is "presupposed" or "postulated" or "taken as given" or "a given precondition", etc. This initial M that is taken as given is the cost price of commodities. 2. many more passages (also documented) in which Marx stated that the total amount of surplus-value is not affected by the distribution of surplus-value, including the equalization of profit rates across industries. This key premise of Marx's theory is contradicted by Rakesh's interpretation, according to which the cost price changes as a result of the determination of prices of production and consequently the amount of surplus-value changes in the opposite direction. So, Rakesh, I agree that the three sentences that you emphasize could be interpreted as you do. But I hope you will also agree that these sentences can also be interpreted as I do. And it seems to me that the surrounding and related textual evidence strongly supports my interpretation. Rakesh, where else do you think that Marx said that the cost price changes as a result of the transformation of values into prices of production? Thanks again. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST