Hi Rakesh, I am sorry that I could not respond sooner to your latest posts, but I just don't have time for OPEL during the week these days (especially last week, since my wife was out of town and I was single parenting). Thanks for your patience. We have been discussing Section 2 of Chapter 12 of Volume 3 (and related passages), in which Marx explicitly stated, in algebraic form, that value = K + S = K + P = price of production. The most striking thing about this equation is that K IS THE SAME for both value and price of production. Rakesh replied in (5315) that the above equation does not express the DETERMINATION of value, but only the RESOLUTION of value into these components. I showed in (5337) that the equation value = K + S is easily derived from Marx's equations for the determination of value and surplus-value; from which it follows that, if K is the same in the above equation, then K is also the same for the determination of value and price of production. Rakesh replied again in (5338) that the equation value = K + S APPLIES ONLY TO THE TOTAL COMMODITY or to the average commodity, not to all commodities. I reminded Rakesh in (5339) of the earlier passages in Chapter 9 of Volume 3, in which Marx explicitly stated (again in equations) that K is the same for all commodities, not just the total commodity or the average commodity. Rakesh's latest reply in (5340 and 5341) argues that Marx stated the equation value = K + S ONLY BEFORE he (Marx) pointed out that he had made a mistake, i.e. that he have failed to transform the inputs "inversely". However, the passage we have been discussing is from Chapter 12. The passage in which Rakesh thinks that Marx admitted that he had made a mistake is in Chapter 9, three chapters BEFORE Chapter 12. So, even after Marx "admitted his error" (in Rakesh's view), Marx continued to state that value = K + S. Indeed, in the paragraph just before the one in Chapter 12 in which he stated again that S = value - K, from which it follows that value = K + S, Marx emphasized that the cost price is equal to the price of production of the inputs, not the value of the inputs. And yet Marx went on to state in the next paragraph that value = K + S. Following from the preceeding paragraph, the K in this equation must be equal to the price of production of the inputs, not to the values of the inputs. Furthermore, back in Chapter 9, in the continuation of the same paragraph in which Marx acknowledged that K = the price of production of inputs (pp. 264-65), Marx stated once again value = K + S. Therefore, the equation value = K + S continues to be valid even after it is recognized that K = the price of production of inputs. In his latest post, Rakesh also continues to argue that total value "can be resolved into" K + S, but is not detemined by K + S. To explore this further, let's call the surplus-value into which value is resolved Sr. Rakesh, are you arguing that this Sr is a different magnitude from (i.e. is not equal to) the surplus-value that is determined in Volume 1 by the difference between new-value and variable capital? If so, why do you think these two surplus-values are not equal? And what textual evidence is there for this interpretation? On the other hand, if you think that Sr = S, then, since Marx stated that Sr = P (total profit), then it follows that S = P, which is what I have been arguing all along. Furthermore, since we agree that total price of production is equal to total value, if S = P, then it follows that the cost price K must be the same in the determination of both value and price of production. I look forward to continued discussion. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT