Hi Rakesh, I don't have much time because of the end-of-semester crunch, but this is a partial reply to your recent posts. 1. Both of the two passages that you present to support your interpretation that the cost price changes in the transformation of values into prices of production (C.III. 264-65 and 309) are within the context of a discussion of commodities produced with capitals of average composition. Marx's main point in these discussions is that the prices of production of these average commodities are EQUAL to their values, unlike all other commodities. This equality between the values and the prices of production of average commodities is logically possible IF AND ONLY IF the cost price (C + V) IS THE SAME for the determination of both the values and prices of production. This can easily be seen from the following equaitons: V = ( C + V ) + S P = ( C + V ) + R (where R stands for profit) According to Marx's logic, since (C + V) IS THE SAME in both equations and R = S for average commoditie, it follows that P = V for average commodities. 2. You argue that, in the transformation of values into prices of production, the cost price MUST CHANGE, i.e. the cost price in the determination of values IS NOT THE SAME as the cost price in the determination of prices of production. However, for average commodities, IF the cost price in the determination of their prices of production is not the same as the cost price in the determination of their values, then the prices of production of these average commodities will NOT be equal to their values, contrary to Marx. In other words, if you interpretation is correct, then Marx is talking nonsense in these discussions of average commodities. If the cost prices of these average commodities change in the transformation of values into prices of production, then the prices of production of these commodities cannot be equal to their values. 3. However, there is another interpretation of your two passages that does not render Marx's discussions of average commodities nonsense. I argue that what Marx is saying in these passages is this: The cost price of commodities is a "given precondition" in the determination of both the value and the prices of production of commodities. It was originally assumed that this given cost price was equal to the sum of the values of the means of production and means of subsistence. We can now see that this given cost price is equal to the sum of the prices of production of the means of production and means of subsistence. However, this further explanation of the cost price does not change the magnitude of cost price. The magnitude of cost price continues to be taken as given in the determination of both the values and the prices of production of commodities. Therefore, for average commodities, since profit is equal to surplus-value, the prices of production of these average commodities are equal to their values. Rakesh, I would be happy to reexamine these passages in detail. But I would be interested in your response to this bare-bones argument. How do you square your argument that the cost price must change with Marx's conclusion that the prices of production of average commodities are equal to their values? Thanks very much. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST