>A couple of questions to Allin and Paul:
>
>(B) In OPE-L 3701, Paul writes:
>
>>Ramos
>>
>>>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.
>>> So, neither "cause 1)" nor "cause 2)" could act in the
>>> case of average commodity.
>
>> Paul C:
>> it depends upon how you define the average commodity.
>> If the average commodity has an average value organic
>> composition you would be right, if on the other hand
>> it has an average price organic composition, there remains
>> the possibility that constant capital used in it has
>> been purchased above or below its value.
>
>My questions:
>
>Could you please indicate me the place(se) in Marx's text
>where he presents this "duplication" of the concept of
>"organic composition of capital"?
>
Certainly not. If we are to restrict our attention on
this list to issues that Marx specifically addressed, then
it would be serving no useful political or scientific purpose.
I take it that the intention of the list is to address
open problems. If we can only address issues that were
specifically addressed in Capital, you condemn historical
materialism to sterility.
Marx may have had some awareness of second order price/value
deviations or he may not, but they remain logical possibilities.
Whether they are significant or not is an empirical question.
To attempt to impose an ideological closure and exclude them
from our problematic, serves no usefull purpose, and is in any
case futile since the questions are in the public domain.
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html