This is a response to Andrew's (2439) and Ted's (2457) concerning our recent
discussion of their interpretation of the transformation problem. We are
going away for a few days, so this will be my last post until next week.
Andrew asked:
Marx's transformation discussion in Ch. 9 assumes a period of one year,
and let's assume that as well. Now, what happens the next year? Is
surplus-value produced, and if so, is it possible that it isn't produced in
proportion to the capital advanced across the various branches? And if
so, doesn't a "further transformation take place" this next year? If
not, why not?
And Ted made a similar point:
Because value is not equal to price, if there is a next period and
everything remains the same there still must be another transformation.
So the transformation is never complete.
My response:
This is a good and clarifying question. Yes, of course, there will be
production in the next period and yes of course there will be a
transformation of surplus-value into profit. However, according to my
interpretation, in the absence of further changes, THE PRICES AND THE RATE
OF PROFIT DETERMINED IN THE NEXT PERIOD WILL BE THE SAME AS IN THE PREVIOUS
PERIOD. The prices and the rate of profit will not have to change further
as a result of an incomplete equalization of profit rates left over from the
previous period, as in KM's interpretation.
I am not arguing that in the next period an equalization of profit rates
will not happen and that a transformation of surplus-value into profit will
not happen. Instead, I am arguing that, in this subsequent transformation
of surplus-value into profit, if everything else remains unchanged, then the
prices of production and the rate of profit will also remain unchanged.
In KM's interpretation, to the contrary, prices of production and the rate
of profit will continue to change from period to period, even without other
changes, because of the continued process of the equalization of profit
rates left over from the previous period. This continued transformation of
prices of production and the rate of profit in subsequent periods, in the
absence of other changes, is why I have argued that KM's interpretation of
the transformation process is NOT complete in each period, and will not be
complete until prices of production and the rate of profit do not change
further in subsequent periods as a result of this transformation process
alone.
Therefore, I continue to argue that the logic of KM's interpretation
requires a multi-period transformation, and that there is no evidence of
such a multi-period interpretation in all of Marx's writings.
Comradely,
Fred