Paul C. wrote:
> No, it is not. But it has implications for the single
> system people too, since their approach involves a
> redefinition of value with respect to its original volume
> 1 definition. This seems to me to be not only theoretically
> confused but in practice pointless since it addresses
> what is probably a non-problem.
A brief note: The "single system" DOES NOT involve a
REDEFINITION OF VALUE with respect to its "original" V.1
definition: In both "volumes" value is cost-price + a
portion of total profit given by the share of the
individual capital into the total living labor exploited
(i.e. cost price + surplus-value; Marx's W = K + m).
This is very easy to show in algebraical terms but,
unfortunately, I do not have so much time now. The
"definition of value corresponding to V.1" is only a
particular case of the situation considered in V.3, C.9.
The so-called "system of values" of V.1 is only the "system
of production prices" assuming that all capitals have the
same composition. Normalizing the resulting system by means
of LX we have Tugan's values expressed in labor-time terms.
(For this, see Pasinetti). (I will post the derivation when
I have some time; the "algebraical framework" is already
in my post OPE-L 3585.)
So, the "general definition of value" is that of V.3,
C.9; the particular case of V.1 is obtained when
compositions are supposed uniform. This means that there
is no "redefinition of value" in the single-system vision.
In formal terms, the definition of V.1 is exactly the same
of that of V.3. The only difference is the "assumption":
either uniform or different compositions, which implies
that, in V.1, prices = values and, in V.3, prices =
production prices.
Important note: I am writing "general definition of value"
(using quotation marks) because, actually, it corresponds to
an "static situation" (without technical change) and
disregarding other more concrete conditions. So, really, it
is not "general". But this is out of the traditional debate.
Alejandro Ramos M.
11.12.96