Thanks to Alejandro for his latest comments. As with my
comments on Fred's latest, however, I think we're reaching
the point where further progress demands a different format
(or, at least, let me speak for myself: I think that
my own view can probably be developed and presented
adequately only in a longer and more considered text).
That said, a couple of brief observations.
1. Alejandro is quite right that Marx's text does not
contain the words I used, namely "cause" and "source". But
I think that calling X a cause or source of Y is pretty much
synonymous with saying that Y "arises from" X. It looks as
if it will take a lot of work to produce a reading of
"arises from" which excludes the cause/source
interpretation.
> (2) I want to call the attention on the following:
>
> If points "1)" and "2)" were CAUSES or SOURCES of deviation
> between production prices and values they cannot "act" in
> the case of the average commodity. This is clear because
> in the average commodity there is not difference AT ALL
> between value and production price.
Here we have a substantive disagreement. I hold that price
of production will not -- in general -- equal value, for a
commodity produced by a capital of average composition in
money terms, if there is a price-value deviation in the
means of production for such a commodity. But -- as I noted
in my recent responses to Fred -- in a context where the
question at issue is the impact of a change in the wage on
price of production, such commodities behave "as if" they
exchanged at their values (i.e. their price remains
unaffected by a change in the wage).
Allin.