From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sun Feb 05 2006 - 12:07:51 EST
Hi Ian, in a couple of recent posts you have mentioned that Marx himself admitted that his determination of prices of production was incomplete, because he failed to transform the inputs from values to prices of production. I can't find the posts right now, but I would like to respond to this widely held view. The passages in which Marx is alleged to have acknowledged that his determination of prices of production is incomplete can be interpreted in another way, as I have argued in a paper in Science and Society 2001, "Marx's Alleged Logical Error: A Comment on Laibman". Briefly, I argue, with substantial textual support, that the magnitude of the cost price is taken as given (both the constant capital and the variable capital) in the determination of both values and prices of production And the crucial point is that the SAME magnitude of the cost price - the actual cost price consumed in production - is taken as given in the determination of both values and prices of production. But this is not the end of the story. The given cost price is also eventually explained by Marx's theory, in a somewhat complicated manner, that involves two stages. In the first stage, it is assumed that the given cost price is equal to the values of the means of production and means of subsistence. Marx made this provisional assumption in Volume 1 because prices of production cannot be explained until later in the theory. The provisional microeconomic assumption that constant capital and variable capital are equal to the values of the means of production and means of subsistence is the only assumption that is consistent with the macro theory of value and surplus-value in Volume 1, at this high level of abstraction. However, the important point is that this provisional assumption about the actual magnitudes of constant capital and variable capital does not determine the magnitudes of constant capital and variable capital in Marx's theory of value and surplus-value in Volume 1. Instead, the magnitudes of constant capital and variable capital are taken as given, as the actual quantities of money-capital consumed in production. These initial actual given quantities of constant capital and variable capital then become determining factors in the value and surplus-value and price of production of commodities. In the second stage, after prices of production have been explained in Volume 3, Marx provides a more complete explanation of the given actual magnitudes of constant capital and variable capital - that these actual magnitudes are equal to the prices of production of the means of production and means of subsistence, not equal to their values. But the important point is that this more complete explanation of the given actual magnitudes of constant capital and variable capital does not change the magnitudes of constant capital and variable capital themselves. The magnitudes of constant capital and variable capital remain the same - the actual quantities of money capital costs consumed in the production of commodities, which are taken as given. What changes is the explanation of these given actual magnitudes - from a partial explanation to a more complete one. I think this is what Marx meant by the "modification of the determination of a commodity's cost price", on p. 264 of Vol. 3 (Vintage edition), which is perhaps the best known of Marx's alleged "admissions of error". The magnitude of the given cost price does not change, but the explanation of this given magnitude is modified. I think this logical procedure - of first taking the actual cost price as given and then later in the theory explaining this initial presupposition - is an example of what Hegel and Marx called the method "posit the presuppositions". Thanks again for the discussion. Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 10 2006 - 00:00:02 EST