This is a response to Rakesh's 4588 (not his latest 4592, just posted). On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > Dear Fred, > This however is not my only evidence! I understand that we have two > interpretations of these pages, so I tried to support my > interpretation on other grounds. I would say that we have two different interpretations of the three sentences that you repeatedly quote on p. 264. I do not understand what your interpretation is of: 1. The preceding three paragraphs (and the later discussion in Chapter 12) in which Marx explicitly stated the COST PRICE IS THE SAME for the determination of both the value of commodities and the prices of production of commodities. 2. The rest of the same paragraph on pp. 264-65 in which Marx again stated that the COST PRICE IS THE SAME for the determination of both the values and the prices of production of commodities. I would appreciate it if you would clarify your interpretation of these passages surrounding the three sentences that you quote. > And indeed nowhere do you deny that > Marx has postulated the experimental set up for his 3 volume > gedankenexperiment (these can be cheap because they don't always > require equipment, but they require a lot of imagination and > therefore their explanatory power is perilously dependent on the > imagination on the theorist's imagination!) Marx has set up the > requirement that all commodities exchange at [prices determined by > (or proportional to)] their full value in a self enclosed capitalist > system in which the value of money is constant, there is no foreign > trade, credit is excluded, only two classes confront one another. > > Marx carries the requirement of exchange of all commodities at full > value over to volume 3; it is then relaxed in a rigorous logical > demonstration for the outputs (only commodities produced by capitals > of average organic compositions are shown to exchange at prices > determined by or proportional to values); once the category price of > production is derived, it is then noted that determination of cost > price would have to be modified since it has been *required* that the > inputs be purchased not in terms of prices of production but rather > at prices determined by or proportional to their full values. I > provided you two quotes from vol 1 where Marx laid out this rule of > his game or thought experiment. I agree that Marx assumed in Volume 1 that prices are equal to values. No disagreement there. But the issue between us is the role of this assumption in the determination of constant capital and variable capital in Marx's theory. You argue that constant capital and variable capital are determined by this assumption, i.e. that C and v are determined by the value of the means of production and means of subsistence. I argue that this assumption is NOT how the magnitudes of C and V are determined. Rather the magnitudes of C and V are taken as given. The assumption that C and V are equal to the values of the MP and MS is a partial explanation of the given magnitudes of C and V. But this partial explanation of the given magnitudes of C and V is not how these magnitudes are determined. These magnitudes are taken as given, and first partially explained in Volume 1 and then more fully explained in Volume 3. I have argued that my interpretation of the determination of C and V in Marx's theory is supported by: 1. The passages mentioned above in which Marx said that the cost price (i.e. C + V) is the same for the determination of both the values and the prices of production of commodities. 2. Marx's analytical framework is the circulation of capital (M - C ... P ... C' - M'), and the circulation of capital begins with M. This initial M in the circulation of capital provides the initial given in Marx's theory of the circulation of capital. This initial given M consists of C + V. 3. There are numerous passages in which Marx explicitly stated that the initial money-capital, M, is "presupposed" or "postulated" or "a given precondition", etc. in his theory (as I have documented in several papers). The initial given M consists of C and V. 4. Marx assumed that the quantity of surplus-value that is determined in Volume 1, is then taken as a given as a fixed magnitude in the analysis of the distribution of surplus-value in Volume 3. This key quantitative premise can be maintained only if C and V are taken as given, and not determined by the value of the MP and MS. Therefore, passages that state the assumption that prices are equal to values do not necessarily support your interpretation of the determination of C and V. There is another possible interpretation of the determination of C and V, that is consistent with the assumption that prices are equal to values, and which is supported by strong methodological arguments and substantial textual evidence. Rakesh, I would be very interested in your response to these arguments to support my interpretation. Thanks again for this productive discussion. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST