Thanks again to Andrew for his further comments (1023) on the determination
of constant capital in Marx's theory. This exchange may have become
repititious and boring to others (I hope not). But I think we are making
progess (slowly) in clarification and mutual understanding.
"GIVEN PRECONDITION" = CHRONOLOGICALLY PRIOR ?
Andrew argues that the value of constant capital is determined at the
BEGINNING of the current period when the inputs enter production and
does not change during the production process as a result of technological
change.
The main textual evidence presented by Andrew to support his interpretation
that constant capital is determined at the END of the current period are the
many passages in which Marx referred to constant capital as "PREPOSITED" to
production or as a "GIVEN PRECONDITION" to production, or similar terms.
Andrew argues that these terms imply that constant capital is determined
chronologically PRIOR to or BEFORE production, and cannot be changed during
the production process.
One of the main passages which Andrew cites to support this interpretation
is from Chapter 8 of Volume 1. Andrew states (in his VIII):
I'm surprised that anyone thinks the passage on pp. 317-18 of Vol. I
(Vintage) supports the "replacement cost" position. Marx's example is:
Day 1, price of cotton = sixpence; Day 2, price of cotton = 1 shilling.
"Each pound of the cotton bought at sixpence and worked up *after* the
rise in value, transfers to the product a value of one shilling." Sure.
The cotton is worked up--becomes an input into production--AFTER the
rise in value, and so it transfers a value of one shilling, THE COST
OF REPRODUCING IT WHEN IT ENTERS PRODUCTION AS AN INPUT. Fred and others
who quote this passage would have a point if Marx had said the
cotton worked up BEFORE the rise in value or in process AT THE TIME
OF the rise transferred a value of 1 shilling, but he didn't.
(Andrew's emphasis)
But, Andrew, MARX DID SAY PRECISELY WHAT YOU SAY HE DIDN'T SAY - that the
cotton worked up BEFORE the rise in the price of cotton also TRANSFERS a
value of 1 shilling - and he said this in the continuation of the SAME
SENTENCE that you quote abvoe (and which I had quoted in full in a previous
post). Again:
Each pound of cotton bought at sixpence, and worked up after the rise in
value, transfers to the product a value of one shilling; AND the cotton
already spun BEFORE the rise, and perhaps CIRCULATING IN THE MARKET AS
YARN, similarly TRANSFERS to the product TWICE its ORIGINAL value.
(C.I. 318; emphasis added)
It seems to me that this is an extremely clear statement of Marx's
assumption that the value of constant capital - the value transferred to the
price of the product - will change during the production period if there is
a change in production conditions. Can there be any doubt or ambiguity
about the meaning of this sentence? And it should be remembered that this
passage is from the carefully-crafted Volume 1 of Capital, and in the
chapter in which Marx introduced his key concepts of constant capital and
variable capital. I would think that this passage provides Marx's
definitive statement of the determination of constant capital.
Another passage in which Marx said essentially the same thing as he did in
Chapter 8 of Volume 1 regarding the value transferred from cotton to the
price of the product is from Chapter 6 of Volume 3 (p. 207)
If the price of a raw material changes - cotton for example - the price of
cotton goods rises as well: both SEMI-FINISHED GOODS such as yarn,
and FINISHED PRODUCTS such as cloth, etc. which are produced with
this more expensive cotton. And cotton that has not yet been worked
up, but is still in the warehouse, rises just as much in value as cotton
that is in the course of manufacture. As the RETROSPECTIVE
expresssion of
more labor time, this cotton ADDS A HIGHER VALUE to the product
which it goes into as a component than it possessed originally and the
capitalist paid for it.
Thus if an increase in the price of raw material takes place with a
significant amount of FINISHED GOODS already present on the market,
at whatever stage of completion, then the value of these commodities
rises and there is a corresponding increase in the value of the capital
involved.
It seems to me that this passage clearly states again that, if the price of
cotton increases, then the price of cotton goods "ALREADY IN PROCESS" and
"FINISHED GOODS ALREADY PRESENT ON THE MARKET" or "AT WHATEVER STAGE OF
COMPLETION" also increases because the now more expensive cotton "ADDS MORE
VALUE" to the price of the product.
Another passage in which Marx stated again that the value transferred to the
price of the product may change during the production process, which I have
already quoted twice, is from the earlier draft of Chapter 8 of Volume 1 in
the 1861-63 manuscript. One more time, a brief excerpt (please see earlier
posts for the complete passage):
Hence although they [the means of production; FM] entered the labor
process with a definite value, they may come out of it with a different
value that is larger or smaller, because the labor time society needs for
their production has undergone a general change. (MECW.30. 80)
Andrew argues that the meaning of this passage and other similar passages is
that although the VALUE OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION may change during the
production process, the VALUE OF THE CONSTANT CAPITAL THAT IS TRANSFERRED to
the price of the product nonetheless does not change. However, we have
already seen that in the passages discussed above that Marx assumed that a
change in the value of the means of production DOES result in a change in
the value transferred to the price of the product. Therefore, it is more
consistent with these other passages to assume that this passage has the
same meaning as the other passages, especially since this passage is from an
earlier draft of Chapter 8 of Volume 1 discussed above. If Marx was saying
something different in the 1861-63 manuscript than he later did in Capital
(which I doubt very much), then Marx must have changed his mind later on,
and his later Volume 1 formulation should be considered his definitive views
on the determination of constant capital, or the value transferred from the
means of production to the price of the product.
Therefore, I conclude from the the above passages and the other passages I
have discussed in previous posts that, although Marx considered constant
capital to be a GIVEN PRECONDITION to production, he nonetheless assumed
that the precise magnitude of this given precondition MAY CHANGE during the
production process as a result of technological change. "Given
precondition" does not imply for Marx that the magnitude of constant capital
is determined once and for all PRIOR to the production proces.
However, I would like to emphasize that my interpretation is not the same as
the neo-Ricardian "simultaneous determination" of the prices of inputs and
outputs. Contrary to the neo-Ricardian interpretation, the means of
production enter production with a given price and not simply as physical
inputs. If there is no technological change, than this originally given
value is the value transferred to the price of the product (as Andrew
emphasizes). In the case of no technological change, the price of the means
of production is not determined simultaneously with the price of the output,
contrary to the neo-Ricardian interpretation. However, in the case of
technological change in the production of the means of production during the
production process, the precise maginitude of the given price of the means
of production changes. The price of the means of production does exist
prior to production and is taken as given in the analysis of surplus-value,
but this given magnitude may change during the production process as a
result of technologocial change in the production of means of production.
I think that the main reason Marx took the prices of the means of production
as given preconditions, even though they are may change during the current
period of production, is that the prices of the means of production HAVE NO
EFFECT ON THE MAGNITUDE OF SURPLUS-VALUE PRODUCED. No matter what the
prices of the means of production are, these prices are transferred to the
price of the output. Since this component of the price of the output is
always identically equal to the prices of the means of production, the
prices of the means of production are an identical component of both the
cost and the price of commodities, and thus cannot be a source of
surplus-value and can have no effect on the magnitude of surplus-value.
Hence, the prices of the means of production can be taken as given in an
analysis of the magnitude of surplus-value. Marx expressed this rationale
in the paragraph from Chapter 8 of Volume 1 discussed above (in the sentence
immediately after the sentence quoted above):
It is plain, however, that these changes of value [of cotton; FM] are
INDEPENDENT OF THE VALORIZATION of the cotton in the
spinning process itself. (C.I. 318)
HEGEL'S LOGIC
Andrew has also introduced an important new element into this debate over
the determination of constant capital - THE RELATION BETWEEN MARX'S LOGICAL
METHOD AND HEGEL'S LOGIC. Andrew argues that: (1) for Hegel, terms such as
'LOGICAL PRECONDITION" etc. meant not only LOGICAL priority, but also
CHRONOLOGICAL priority; and (2) Marx adopted essentially the same meaning of
these terms as did Hegel.
I do not know enough about Hegel's logic to know if (1) is correct. I
intend to learn more about Hegel's logic in the very near future. (This was
supposed to be my main sabbatical research project this year, but I have
been so busy with other things - including OPE-L - that I haven't really
started on this project yet. But I hope to soon. Manana.) In the
meantime, I am sure that other list members know much more about Hegel than
I do, and I hope that some of you will help us out on this important
question. Do Hegel's concepts of "given precondition" etc. necessarily
imply chronological priority, such that the given magnitudes cannot later
change? Do you think that Marx's similar concepts also necessarily imply
chronological priority, in the sense that the value transferred from the
constant capital to the price of the product, which is taken as a
precondition in Marx's theory, must be determined once and for all PRIOR to
the current period, and cannot be changed during the current period as a
result of technological change?
I know that these are difficult questions. But I hope some of you will
help us understand them better.
In the interest of keeping posts short(er), I will stop here, leave other
issues for later discussion, and allow Andrew and others to reply to these
points. Thanks very much.
Fred