I've just received a message from Alejandro Ramos that clarifies and
elaborates on the significance of the new evidence he found in support of the
single-system interpretation of values and prices in Marx (see ope-l 3573).
At the end of his message, Alejandro writes:
"If you consider that this (or some parts of this) is relevant for OPE-L, I
will be very happy if you post it there. In this case, I ask you to correct
my deficient personal usage of English language (only the worst errors, of
course)."
I am therefore posting the letter to the list below. The English is
completely understandable, so I'm leaving it as is.
Andrew Kliman
================================
Dear Andrew:
Thank you for including my letter in your OPE-L post of Nov. 1. I
have been re-checking the whole thing of Ch. 9 and it seems that it
is a little bit more complex than my original message suggests.
What we have in MEGA, Section II, Vol. 4.2 (Published in 1992) is
only the "main manuscript" of Vol. III, written between Summer 1864
and December 1865. It is true that Engels suppressed the passage
where we have the "non-dualistic" definitions of value and production
price. However, the single-table published by Engels in 1894 does
not appear in the "main manuscript" (!!).
I will describe to you the lay-out of the "main manuscript" in
confrontation with the 1894 version (using the pagination of
Penguin/Vintage):
1. (p. 263) Para.: "In Vol 1 and 2..." Similar to the "main
manuscript".
2. Pasagge suppressed by Engels containing the definitions of value
and production prices. It has 28 lines.
3. (p. 263) Para.: "If we take..." Similar to the "main manuscript".
4. (p. 263) Para.: "The specific degree..." This paragraph should
contain the single-table but it is not there. In the "main
manuscript" it is only mentioned the average composition capital
80c+20v and there is the idea of diverse capitals whose cost-price
components always sum 100, but there are not the specific examples.
In other words, the capitals 90c+10v and 70c+30v do not appear and,
as said, the table is not presented.
5. (p. 264) Para.: "The development..." Similar to "main manuscript"
(This paragraph is the famous one, which "it is always possible to go
wrong...")
Hypotheses:
(a) The single-table was inserted by Engels, replacing the paragraph
2. (28 lines) suppressed and "claryfing" Marx's phrasing in the
paragraph that I numbered 4. In effect, Marx presents the 80c+20v
average capital and the formulas m+n=100, (m+x)c, (n-x)v, (m-x)c
and (n+x)v. You need only to say: Let us suppose that x=10 and you
have the three commodities example of the single table. On the other
hand, if we examine this table, it is completely clear that value =
cost-price + surplus-value and production price is cost-price +
profit i.e., what Marx says in the paragraph suppressed. So, the
table contains the same definitions using a "practical" example.
(b) The single-table was inserted later by Marx himself. It is
important to remember that we have only the "main manuscript" of
Vol. III, but there are another manuscripts "belonging to Vol. III"
(written between 1863-67). I do not know if they are now finally
published. In particular, the planned MEGA, Section II, Vol. 4.3
(will) contain(s) "diverse manuscripts belonging to Vols. II and III".
I also know that the planned MEGA, Section II, Vol. 15 will contain
manuscripts of Vol. III. In any of this materials could be "inserted"
the single-table.
The editorial footnotes of MEGA, Section II, Vol. 4.2 do not explain
the difference between the "main manuscript" and the book published
by Engels, which we know as "Vol. III".
I think you will agree with me that, basically, all this does not
alter the meaning of the "textual evidence". If Engels was who
inserted the table, this only "compensates" the suppression of the
paragraph that I numbered 2. It is simply another version of the
definitions which have been neglected in the literature. If we
take the 2 things together (definitions and table), obviously the
evidence is clearer and stronger. In any case, it is important
to note two things:
a) In the "main manuscript" (probably in 1865) Marx defines:
value = cost-price + surplus-value
production price = cost-price + profit
b) With the material of the "main manuscript" it is easy to construct
a single-table example, an exercise/addition that could be done by
Engels, and that simply puts clearer what Marx says.
Perhaps you will also agree with me that it is INCREDIBLE that,
presumably, NO-ONE has still done a DEEP research concerning these
texts, which have been "discussed ad nauseam" for many years.
At least, we could try to find the e-mail of the IISG and to ask if
MEGA, Section 2, Vol. 4.3 is already published. This, perhaps, could
eliminate (or not) hypothesis (b). It would be also important to find
Ohno (1993) article.
My best, Alejandro 1.11.96
PD: If you consider that this (or some parts of this) is relevant for
OPE-L, I will be very happy if you post it there. In this case, I ask
you to correct my deficient personal usage of English language (only
the worst errors, of course).