"The *production price* of the commodity has also developed, as a TRANSFORMED
FORM of value" (Marx, _Capital_, Vol. III, p. 263, Vintage, capitalization
added).
"... surplus-value denies its own origin in this, its TRANSFORMED FORM, which
is profit" (ibid., p. 267, capitalization added).
Alejandro Ramos and Chai-on are therefore right, irrespective of how
Verwandlung is translated.
A propos of this concern over Marx's specific formulations, it is only partly
a lack of time which has been keeping me out of the renewed debate over the
one- and two-system interpretations. I also have stayed out because the
ever-deepening hairsplitting over particular words and formulations is
something I find less than helpful, especially when one is dealing with
manuscripts not prepared for publication. One needs to understand things in
the context of the whole. The key piece of evidence that tells us the
single-system interpretation is right, therefore, is the fact that it works
and the two-system interpretation doesn't. That is, in the former, what Marx
was saying makes sense, while in the latter the whole thing is hopelessly
confused and self-contradictory.
Andrew Kliman