From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 04:08:09 EST
Jerry: What this means is that one has to grasp at least in the most general and abstract way the order of all of the different steps related to (in this case) price before one begins the *presentation* of the analysis with an examination of the commodity. Marx, I think, had a pretty good idea of what these steps were and how it "all fit together", but do we? Instead of proceeding as Marx did, I think instead we often proceed as if the order of presentation represents the real order in which the subject needs to be grasped. We should not confuse the order of analysis with the order of presentation. ______________________ Diego: OK. But I think something similar to what Jurriaan means when he says: "Strictly speaking of course Marx does not have a labour theory of value, he has a labour theory of output values." At least, it is that what constitutes his primary concern in Capital although I am aware that he deals as well with the price of land, etc. ____________________________ > There is no doubt that Iraqi antiquities were part of the > surplus-labour realized at the moment, not of present > surplus-value. But again, before considering the relation > between the capitalist mode of production and other > modes of production, we should analyse the former in > its purity (this applies also to the Inuits). If you are saying that in terms of the *order of presentation* we must first consider the subject matter "in its pure form", then I agree. But, we must not forget that the subject matter isn't a product of thought, but a real product of history. Part of the real process of capitalist history has been to have a valuation of products created in pre-capitalist history. My point is simply that this must mean, *more concretely*, that total value can NOT equal total price. This should be grasped at least in a general way even before one presents the subject of the commodity-form, even though one doesn't present it at that time. In other words, it forms a presupposition (both historically and in thought) of the presentation of the commodity-form. _______________________________________ In any case, I was meaning total direct prices = total production prices = total market prices in the context of Marx's "labour theory of output values" in capitalism. _________________________________________ > As for the tigers they are the result of a production > process and so a normal commodity. It is true that > tigers are part of Nature but not more than minerals or > oil. No. An explanation for the price at which tigers are sold on the market requires a comprehension of the role of the *State*. Remember that it is illegal to hunt and sell tigers and that the hunting is done on publicly-owned reserves. This creates a black market for tigers and the additional risk associated with tiger-hunting (i.e. the risk of being caught, fined and/or imprisoned) is considered in price determination. If the market price of tigers equalled value [as conventionally understood by Marxians] then it's doubtful that there would be tiger hunting to begin with. [Another difference is that tigers, unlike oil, are capable of self-reproduction.] ______________________________________ I agree with you. When there exists a systematic shortage of supply (due to the presence of the state of whatever) a black market arises with a market price higher than the "equilibrium" price. The important point is that no market price that is systematically higher than the regulating price (in the Marxian sense) due to demand reasons contradict the LTV. ______________________________________ > I think that most cases you cite are examples of the > non-freely-reproducible goods of which Ricardo > already spoke, to which does not apply the main norm > of the LTV, because their price is determined by > demand. In conventional terms, their > supply is a vertical line, so the price can be any > depending on the intensity of demand. I agree that the examples do not apply to the main norm of the LTV. That was my point in a sense. Rather than simply saying, though, that these "special cases" are determined by demand, we have to consider on a more concrete level the impact on the aggregate level of the "deviations" from the norm that happen on the "micro" level. Simply relying on conventional analysis of S and D is not enough. _______________________________ What do you propose then? _______________________________ In solidarity, Jerry Cheers, Diego
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST