Jerry wrote in 5364: >In 5632 Ajit wrote: > >> The problem is simple: how do you deal with the >> means of production part of the commodity in its >> exchange? > >Reuten-Williams after an answer to that problem >in _Value-Form and the State_, pp. 68-71. In >brief, from their perspective the magnitude of the >value transferred from the means of production is >determined by the *current value* (or what R/W >call the *current ideal value*) of the m of >p rather than the historical value (historical costs). >On this point, see 9c (71) and note 6 (69). Jerry, by determining social value of the means of production as the cost of reproduction at the time the output is sold, both VFT (it seems) and TSS (especially Carchedi) seem to be at odds with the neo Ricardian attempt to compute labor contents of physical inputs through the reduction of dated quantities of labour (Carchedi, p. 96-7). I don't see however how this answers Joan Robinson's and Ajit's challenge that the current ideal value cannot any more than the embodied labor value of of the means of production be determined without commodity residue. Then it gets more complicated. Fred himself underlines that the value of the used up means of prod is not the same as the value of the money needed to buy the used up means of production at current costs; but he argues that the value transferred by the working from the means of production is determined by the latter, not former, magnitude. If I understood Andrew K, he is arguing that the value of the means of production *is* the value of the money that was needed to buy them at historical costs, and this is the value which is transferred by the working class to the output. So Ajit has a couple of answers to his question about how the means of production part of commodities is dealt with in exchange to choose from among mumbo jumbo speaking Hegelians. So it would seem however that by dealing with the value of means of production of the commodity in monetary terms, both Fred and Andrew can sidestep any problem in determining the labor value of the means of production themselves without commodity residue. This option is not open to me. From her piece in the Jesse Schwartz, ed Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism, Robinson seems to think that the net physical output can be determined easily, but I think Alan F and Andrew K have raised sharp objections to this. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT