Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: Pen-L Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sat Mar 10 2007 - 10:50:46 EST 

Quoting ajit sinha <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM>:

> Secondly, the whole world knows that Marx first gets
> value and surplus value and from given surplus value
> he derives his rate of profits as r = S/(C+V) and then
> goes on to derive his prices of production as
> [C(i)+V(i)](1+r). But the whole world also knows that
> this derivation has LOGICAL problem. So what is the
> big deal about a methodology that has a logical
> problem? Cheers, ajit sinha


Hi Ajit,

I know that almost the whole world thinks that Marx’s theory has a
“logical problem”, but I (and Diego and others) think that almost the
whole world is wrong in this criticism.  The “logical problem ” that
Marx’s theory allegedly has is that he “failed to transform the inputs”
of constant capital and variable capital from values into prices of
production.  But I argue that Marx’s theory does not have this logical
problem, and that this criticism is based on a misunderstanding of
Marx’s method of determination of the initial inputs of constant
capital and variable capital.

The usual criticism assumes that constant capital and variable capital
are derived from given physical quantities of means of production and
means of subsistence, and that these inputs are first determined as the
values of these given physical quantities, and then should be later
redetermined as the prices of production of these given physical
quantities, and that Marx failed to make this second redetermination of
constant capital and variable capital.

I argue, to the contrary, that the initial quantities of money constant
capital and variable capital are TAKEN AS GIVEN, and the crucial point
is that the SAME QUANTITIES of constant capital and variable capital
are taken as given in the determination of BOTH values and prices of
production – the quantities of money capital advanced to purchase means
of production and labor-power at the beginning of the circulation of
capital (the M in M-C …).  These given quantities of money capital are
later explained as equal to the prices of production of the means of
production and means of subsistence, but to begin with they are simply
taken as given.  Therefore, Marx did NOT “fail to transform the inputs”
of constant capital and variable capital, because these inputs are not
supposed to be transformed.

You may disagree with this logical method of determination of constant
capital and variable capital, either as an interpretation of Marx’s
method, or as a valid logical method.  But I have argued in a number of
papers that:  (1) there is substantial textual evidence to support this
interpretation of Marx’s method, and (2) this is a valid logical method.

Leaving aside the issue of interpretation for now, why do you think
this is not a valid logical method?

Comradely,
Fred


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT