From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sun Feb 05 2006 - 11:44:30 EST
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Ian Wright wrote: > OK. Cost price really is price, because it is advanced to production, > and represents past production. Value-added, in contrast, is not > determined by price, but by actual labour-time, because it is current > production. So, as far as I understand it, you differ from Marx in > ch.9, who doesn't make this distinction between (i) cost-price as > price and (ii) new value as a function of labour-time and MELT (happy > to be corrected). No quarrel if you differ from Marx, because his > transformation is incomplete, by his own admission. I presume by Chapter 9, you mean Volume 3, right? We need to be clear that there are two main stages of analysis in Capital: 1. The macro determination of the total value and surplus-value in Vol. 1 (the level of abstraction of capital in general). 2. The micro determination of individual prices of production (and the other individual parts of surplus-value) in Vol. 3 (the level of abstraction of competition or many capitals). The distinction between cost price and new value produced belongs to the macro theory of Vol. 1, and thus is used to determine the total amount of value and surplus-value, which in turn determines (in part) the general rate of profit. You are right that the distinction between cost price and new value produced plays no role in the micro theory of individual prices of production in Vol. 3. There is no disagreement between me and Marx on this issue. But this distinction plays an essential role in the prior macro theory in Vol. 1. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 06 2006 - 00:00:01 EST