I would like to join the discussion initiated by Andrew and followed by
Allin about the precise determination of constant capital and variable
capital, the inputs to Marx's theory of value, surplus-value, and prices of
production - whether these inputs are equal to the value of the means of
production and the means of subsistence (the standard interpretation, which
Allin follows) or instead are equal to the prices of production of the means
of production and the means of subsistence (the non-standard "monetary"
interpretation put forward in recent years by a number of people, including
Andrew and myself, and also Alejandro Ramos, Alan F., Mino C., and Paul
Mattick, Jr.
(A parenthetical note, to be followed in a future post: In my view, the
"new solution" presented by Duncan, Dumenil. etc., occupies an inconsistent
middle position between these two interpretations: it argues that variable
capital is equal to the price of production of the means of subsistence, but
at the same time it argues that constant capital is equal to the value of
the means of production).
Unfortunately, I will not have much time in the next week or so, so I will
just start with a piece of this important topic and try to deal with it more
thoroughly as soon as I can.
I presented the general theoretical perspective to support my interpretation
last spring on OPE-L (and in several recent papers), which emphasized that
constant capital and variable capital are taken as given as the quantities
of money-capital invested to purchase the means of production and the means
of subsistence in the first phase of the circulation of capital (the M in M
- C - M') and as these given quantities of money-capital are equal to the
prices of production of the means of production and the means of
subsistence, and are not derived from the values of these input commodities,
as in the standard interpretation. Perhaps I will review this general
theoretical perspective later, since in provides the background for the more
specific comments to follow:
1. I want to comment on the passage from the MEGA that Alejandro has
discovered. Alejandro described this passage to Andrew:
(b) Marx Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA 2, Band 4). Original manuscript of
Vol. III, published in 1992 by IISG, Amsterdam, (Dietz Verlag, Berlin), pp
239-240.
Here we have a passage SUPPRESSED BY ENGELS where Marx defines clearly
value and production prices as:
Werth = KostenpreiB + Mehrwerth
ProductionspreiB = KostenpreiB + Profit
Hence, there is no difference between value and production-price regarding
"KostenpreiB". This is what [----] et al. have been misunderstanding for
90 years.
Like Andrew and Alejandro, I also think that passage provides important
textual support for our "monetary" interpretation. It seems to clearly
state that that the cost-price - the sum of the constant capital consumed
and the variable capital - is the same in the determination of both the
value of commodities and the price of production of commodities. In other
words, the cost-price is not affected by the transformation from values into
prices of production.
I would certainly like to know more about the context of this passage and
perhaps other discussions of this point. The Mexican philosopher Dussel
that I have mentioned before discusses the Volume 3 manuscript (in the third
of his three books on Marx's economic manuscripts), and I will look back
over this as soon as I get the time.
2. Furthermore, I would also like to point out that one of the passages
cited by Andrew in (3572) says exactly the same thing - but in the next
paragraph not explicitly quoted by Andrew. The passage is from Chapter 12
of Volume 3 ("Supplementary Remarks"), and in particular from Section 2
which is about the "Production Price of Commodities with Average
Composition". Marx had already argued in Chapter 9 of Volume 3 (pp. 263-64)
that the price of production of commodities produced with capitals of
average composition (let us call this the "average commodity") is equal to
the value of these commodities.
Andrew's quoted passage is as follows:
[T]he price of production of a commodity that diverges in this way from
its value enters as an element into the cost price of other commodities,
which means that a divergence from the value of the means of production
consumed may already be contained in the cost price ....
It is quite possible, accordingly, for the cost price to diverge from the
value sum of the elements of which this component of the price of
production is composed, even in the case of commodities that are produced
by capitals of average composition. ... The [variable capital] can
similarly diverge from its value, if the spending of wages on consumption
involves commodities whose prices of production are different from their
values. The workers must work for a greater or lesser amount of time in
order to buy back these commodities (to replace them) and must therefore
perform more or less necessary labor than would be needed if the prices of
production of their necessary means of subsistence did coincide with their
values.
In the next paragraph, Marx continued:
YET THIS POSSIBILITY IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PRINCIPLES
PUT FORWARD FOR COMMODITIES OF AVERAGE COMPOSITION. The quantity of
profit that falls to the share of these commodities is equal to the
quantity of surplus-value contained in them. For the above capital, with
its composition of 80c + 20v, for example, the important thing as far as
the determination of surplus-value is concerned is not whether these
figures are the expression of actual values, but rather what their mutual
relationship is; i.e. that v is one-fifth of the total capital and c is
four-fifths. As soon as this is the case, as assumed above, the
surplus-value v produces is equal to the average profit. *On the other
hand, because it [the surplus-value; FM] is equal to the average profit,
the prices of production = cost price + profit = k + p = k + s, which is
equal in practice to the commodity's value.* (C.III. 309-10; emphases
added).
To repeat, for clarity:
prices of production = cost price + profit
= k + p
= k + s
= value
It seems to me that this passage clearly says that the cost-price of the
average commodity is the same for both the value of this commodity and for
the price of production of this commodity, and that this cost-price is equal
to the prices of production of the means of production and the means of
subsistence and NOT equal to the values of these input commodities. In
other words, the cost-price of the average commodity is not affected by the
transformation of values into prices of production. This key point is
indicated by the fact that, in Marx's equations, the same k (the
cost-price) is a component BOTH of the value of the average commodity AND of
the price of production of this commodity.
Further, since the cost-price component is the same in the determination of
both the value and the price of production of the average commodity, and
since profit is equal to surplus-value for this commodity, the price of
production of this commodity is equal to its value. This conclusion derived
in Chapter 9 is true if and only if the cost-price component is the same in
the determination of both the value and the price of production of the
average commodity.
If this invariance of the cost-price (constant capital and variable capital)
is true for commodities produced with capitals of average composition, then
this invariance is also true for all other capitals. All other commodities
are characterized by the same inequality between the price and value of
their inputs. But, as in the case of commodities produced with capitals of
average composition, this inequality does not alter the magnitude of their
cost-prices, which are equal to the prices of production of these inputs.
I guess it is possible that this passage included by Engels as a
"supplementary remark" is the same one that Alejandro has discovered in the
MEGA. But the wording does not seem to be the same, so probably not. In
any case, I think that this discussion of the equality of the value and the
price of production of commodities produced with capitals of average
composition provides very strong evidence for our "monetary" interpretation.
Comradely,
Fred