re Fred's 4593 >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. Yes, both the cost price and the sum of surplus value remain the same if one does not transform the inputs. I read Marx to himself underline on p. 263-5 that he has not transformed the inputs but left them in the form of simple prices. That is, Marx has stipulated that commodities exchange at prices proportional to their full values; only after the completion of the second transformation tableau does he relax the postulate of exchange at value. Since this postulate of his thought experiment is only relaxed at this point, the inputs have to have been in the form of simple prices, as has been stipulated since vol 1. > > >I agree that Marx assumed in Volume 1 that prices are equal to values. No >disagreement there. But there is a disagreement. I am saying that Marx did not simply assume but stipulated exchange at prices proportional to full value. As Grossmann pointed out, it's a postulate like zero friction in a perfect vacuum. >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. Again, this cannot be. Marx cannot simply take C and V as given. You have simply missed my argument here! Marx has to stipulate that the input means of production and means of subsistence are bought at prices EXACTLY proportional to their full value. Only this way can he ensure that the only source of surplus value is the consumption of labor power (if leather sells below value, the surplus value embodied in boots could be due to the self valorization of the leather, not the exploitation of the proletariat); correlatively, only by stipulating exchange at value can he ensure that live labor does indeed produce surplus value (if the prices of leather or awls are taken as given and happen to sell above value, dM could be swallowed up by M). > >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. Of course I read Marx saying that exactly because he has left the inputs in the form of simple prices, the cost price needs to be modified; and that if one does not recognize that the cost price is not determined--as they have been in his tableaux--in terms of the simple prices of the input means of production and subsistence (that is, their respective full labor values * m), then one can go wrong. > >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. I do agree that Marx begins with money magnitudes. As I wrote in my last message, I agree with you that Marx's original, unmodifed transformation tableau (Capital 3, p. 256) is not in values, as Dobb suggests. The cost price (c + v) is the money sum which has been laid out as constant and variable capital. However the prices at which the input means of production and means of subsistence were sold was determined on the controlling assumption that all commodities exchange at prices *proportional* to value (that is, all commodities are required to exchange at their full labor value * the monetary expression of labor value which remains constant throughout the demonstration). So the inputs are not in values; they are in prices proportional to the values of the input means of production and means of subsistence. There is indeed no value table--you, Alejandro, Andrew and others are correct. The original table is denominated however in direct or simple prices (Gouverneur), and the inputs are not already in the form of prices of production. > >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. But how is the initial M determined? I read Marx as saying that he has assumed that initial M has been determined as the money sum needed to buy the input means of production and subsistence at simple prices. Marx later tells us that this postulate of his gedankenexperiment has to be relaxed as we make successive approximations to reality. > >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. Marx does not only analyze distribution of surplus value in vol 3. By ch 9, he has already analyzed the effects of turnover and the saving of constant capital on the mass of surplus value. So I suppose you mean only part 2 of vol 3, right? Indeed if one is not to transform the inputs and take the cost price as given,then it is simply a matter of distributing surplus value. But Marx himself notes the need to modify cost price and thus modify (in opposite direction) the mass of surplus value. > >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. And thank you. Comradely, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST