Rakesh, thanks for your clarification. I started teaching today (three classes this semester), so it will probably be a few days before I get back to our discussion, which I look forward to. Fred On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:14:35 -0800 > From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU> > Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > Subject: [OPE-L:4799] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: modified significance of the > cost price > > Fred writes in 4798: > > >Rakesh, let me try to make sure I understand what you have been > >saying. Maybe there is more agreement than I have appreciated. I have > >been thinking some more about your "retracting criticisms of Fred" and > >"conceding defeat". > > > >You seem to agree with me that, in Marx's theory of prices of production, > >the inputs of constant capital and variable capital are already in money > >terms and are equal to the price of production of the MP and MS. In other > >words, you agree with me that Marx himself, in his theory of prices of > >production, DID NOT FAIL to transform the inputs of constant capital and > >variable capital from values to prices of production (as alleged by the > >standard criticism of Marx's theory), right? > > > Yes. > > > >If so, then this is a very significant agreement. > > I think so too. > > > > > > >However, where we disagree is that you argue that Marx made THE OPPOSITE > >MISTAKE than in the standard critique. Rather than failing to transform > >the inputs from values to prices of production in the determination of the > >prices of production of outputs, Marx failed to make the OPPOSITE > >TRANSFORMATION (i.e. an "inverse transformation"); that is, he failed to > >transform the prices of production of inputs BACKWARD from prices of > >production to values in the determination of the values of outputs. > > > >Rakesh, do I understand you correctly? > > > So much so that you have articulated my point better than I have. I > have also accepted your earlier description of my interpretation as > an inverse transformation problem. > > > >Thanks very much in advance for you clarification. I look forward to > >further discussion and perhaps even to greater agreement. > > > >Comradely, > >Fred > > > > > >P.S. Based on my (4796) and your (4797), do you also agree that when Marx > >discussed the "value" of commodities in Capital (e.g. in Parts 1 and 2 of > >Volume 3 that we have been discussing) that he almost always means money > >or prices (i.e. the monetary expression of value)? Do we agree that > >Marx's theory of value and surplus-value is about quantities of > >money-capital in circulation (M - C ... M'), not about quantities of > >labor-time which are only illustrated by money? > > > I think you are correct here as well. > > > > > Marx's theory of value > >and surplus-value may be about "simple" or "direct" prices (that is a > >separate issue), but at least it is about prices, right? Thanks again. > > > Absolutely. > > Comradely, Rakesh > > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST