Allin and Andrew K have both correctly underlined that with my iteration in which total direct price is set equal to total price of production, the sum of surplus value--defined on the basis of Marx's own words as total value, monetarily expressed, minus cost price--could turn out be greater in the price of production scheme than the direct price scheme. They have then argued that since live labor is putatively no longer necessarily the sole source of surplus value, I have undermined the exploitation theory of surplus value, which is obviously why Meek held invariant the sum of surplus value in the transformation, just as Allin did in the iteration which he sumbitted to the list. But this specific criticism will not hold up (Allin has other criticisms about how I have defined surplus value and how I handle money). My iteration does no damage to the labor theory of value for several reasons: 1. If the cost prices are reduced by the transformation such that the inputs sell below value, the sum of surplus value will not be increased thereby *unless live labor transfers gratis the value of those means of production to the output*. The source of surplus value remains live labor. 2. in my iteration the exploitation of live labor remains a necessary and sufficient condition for the production of surplus value. For if there were no surplus value in the direct price scheme, there could be no transformation. 3. In my understanding, Marx did not argue that inputs selling below value can never contribute to an enlargement of surplus value. He said that on a systematic basis this could never be a secure source of surplus value. And my iteration confirms that since only in truly freak and practically irrelevant conditions in which dept III is inordinately large and much more relatively capital intensive could the sum of surplus value be enlarged through the transformation. My iteration therefore stengthens the thesis that the expansion of capital depends in practical terms on newly produced value by live labor 4. even in the case in which the transformation allows the sum of surplus value to be enlarged, surplus value remains derived *entirely* from unpaid labor. So as long as one chooses the correct invariance condition--which Sweezy did not solely on the grounds that the mathematical problem was too tough--it's possible to show that labor theory of value and surplus value is not damaged by the inclusion of the inputs in the transformation. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT