From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 12:20:25 EST
Hi again Fred, To clarify. I see that you have not said M-C-M' simply, but M . . . C . . . P . . . . C' . . . M' and describe this as the circuit of money capital. So production is included. I suppose this makes my assertion that it is a phenomenon of circulation not accurate. It provides the analytical framework for the circuit of money capital. Is that adequate for understanding the analytical framework of capital itself? Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Engelskirchen" <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values > Hi Fred, > > I have a worry somewhat independent of the issues you raise with Diego. > > We already jousted about this during the summer. > > You refer to Marx's "analytical framework" as being M - C - M'. > > M - C - M' is a phenomenon of circulation. It is implausible to me that > either the logic of capital or the framework for its analysis is provided > by circulation. > > I'm interested in your reference to the logic of capital. Have you said > below that the logic of capital, as you use the term, is the same in volume > I as in volume III? > > Howard > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pen-L Fred Moseley" <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 10:28 AM > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values > > > Quoting Diego Guerrero <diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES>: > > > In my opinion, values and market prices determine each other mutually. > > Values are created by labour but the value of a commodity includes the > > MARKET price of the inputs. As Rakesh said in his last message, Marx has > > been misread also in this point. In > > <http://www.countdownnet.info/archivio/teoria/521.doc> I > > argue that the inputs have to be valued at market prices (m), not at > values > > (w) or production prices (p)--I thus disagree with Alejandro Ramos and > Fred > > Moseley too. In Capital I and II, Marx is assuming that m = w, and in > > Capital III, that m = p, but this is only the first assumption in > analysis. > > As a general theory it should be assumed that m = m, different from both w > > and p. One can find in Marx's texts a fondation for this. The reason is > that > > he is (and we should be) interested in the process of creation of NEW > > values, and he says explicitly that for this we can and must abstract from > > the values that come from other places, like in the case of the chemist: > > > Hi Diego, > > This is a very interesting paragraph, which discusses two different > questions. These two questions are related, but I think we need to > distinguish between them more clearly: > > 1. What was the logic of Marx's theory in the three volumes of Capital? > > 2. How should we extend Marx's theory to a more general theory, which > includes market prices? > > With respect to the first question, you seem to agree that Volume 3 of > Capital is about the determination of prices of production, and that > this theory assumes that the prices of the inputs are prices of > production. That is, when you say that the inputs for the > determination of prices of production should be the market prices of > the inputs, you mean that this is your suggested generalization of > Marx's theory in Capital to include market prices, not your > interpretation of what Marx did in Volume 3; right? > > Do I understand you correctly? > > Is so, then it seems to me (based on our previous private email > discussions last Spring) that we are in substantial agreement about > Marx's logic in Capital. The main points of agreement between us would > seem to be: > > 1. The circulation of money capital (M - C . P . C' - M') is the basic > analytical framework of Marx's theory. > > 2. This analytical framework suggests that the M at the beginning of > the circulation of money capital is TAKEN AS GIVEN, as the money > capital advanced to purchase means of production and labor-power. And > the crucial point is that the SAME M is taken as given in the > determination of both value in Volume 1 and prices of production in > Volume 3. Thus there can be no question of Marx "failing to transform > the inputs" of constant capital and variable capital from values to > prices of production. This initial given M is eventually explained as > equal to the prices of production of the means of production and means > of subsistence. > > 3. The total surplus-value and the general rate of profit are > DETERMINED PRIOR to prices of production; in other words, Marx's theory > is based on a logic of SEQUENTIAL determination, not simultaneous > determination. > > 4. Both of Marx's two aggregate equalities are always true simultaneously. > > 5. Constant capital is valued at current costs (at the time the > products are sold), not at historical costs. > > To what extent do you agree with these points about Marx's logic in Capital? > > You seem to emphasize much more the second question in your recent > paper (and I think more generally in your recent work). I agree that > this is an important question, and I would be happy to discuss it. I > think there will be more disagreement about this second question. > > But I think it is also important to emphasize that, within Marx's > analytical framework of Capital (essentially excluding market prices > and stopping in Volume 3 with prices of production), his logic is > correct, not flawed and inconsistent. The Bortkiewicz criticism is > wrong, because it is based on a misunderstanding of Marx's logic in > Capital. > > So I think we need to distinguish more clearly between these two > questions. I realize this more clearly now than I did in our previous > discussions. > > Comradely, > Fred > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST