In his reply to David Laibman, Fred writes in the attachment to 4867 On the other hand, the difference between cost-price and value, insofar as it enters into the price of the new commodity independently of its own production process, is incorporated in the value of the new commodity as an antecedent element. (Marx 1971:167; emphasis added) In this passage, after stating again that one of the two reasons why the prices of production of commodities diverge from their values is that the cost-prices of commodities (the inputs of constant capital and variable capital) are not equal to the values of the means of production and means of subsistence, Marx went on to say that, in spite of this inequality, the cost-price of commodities is nonetheless a 'given precondition'. I think that the last sentence of this passage is especially important: even though the cost-price is not equal to the value of the means of production and means of subsistence, this cost-price is nonetheless 'incorporated into the value of commodities as an antecedent element,' that is, as a given precondition. As in the passage from Marx 1982:265 discussed above, the same cost-price (k) is taken as an antecedent element in the determination of both the value of commodities and the price of production of commodities. Therefore, this passage also supports the interpretation presented here. Fred, this seems to be very good evidence against the interpretation which I have been proposing. It seems to support your interpretation of constant capital, provided in 4832 "As I have argued before, the quantity of past labor embodied in the means of production already has acquired the social form of price. Means of production do not enter production as mere physical quantities, but rather as commodities, i.e. with a price. This price is the social expression of the past labor embodied in the means of production (although it is not proportional to this past labor), and it is in this social form of price that the past labor embodied in the means of production enters into the determination of the value of the output. Because this past labor already has acquired the form of price, it does not enter directly in the form of labor-time into the determination of the value of the output." But again the passage cannot support your interpretation. For in the very next line--which you do not include--Marx reiterates just as he does in Capital 3, pp. 308-9, that there are two reasons why prices of production (here Marx uses cost price as John E has helpfully pointed out) and values diverge. It would make no sense for Marx to say there are two reasons if the value of a commodity were not determined by the value of the inputs going into it. If the value of a commodity were determined by the value of the money needed to have purchased those inputs, there would be no reason for value of a commodity and its price of production to diverge for the additional reason that the value of the inputs is not the same as the value of the money needed to purchase them. Well, at least my criticism may help to bring you and Andrew, Alejandro and Alan F closer together because on this issue you all seem united against poor old me. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST