I don't really approve of Alan's suggestion to Ajit in [4491] that he "let
fly" against Fred because he is going to be away for a while.
Now Alejandro R suggests in [4500] that we spend the time while Fred is
away discussing -- "Is Fred a 'newsolutionist'?".
If others are intent on employing this sneaky tactic of purposely
discussing Fred's theories while he is away, I've got a better idea.
Let's discuss Fred's ideas about "Givens in Marx's Theories" (which is
outlined in the following post from November, 18, 1996).
To all of you listmembers who have received a lot of feedback on your
posts from Fred, shouldn't you return the favor? I think his
perspectives deserve a wider hearing and discussion on the list than they
received in the late Fall.
In solidarity, Jerry
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fred Moseley <fmoseley@laneta.apc.org>
Subject: [OPE-L:3680] cost price and value
I want to try to put our recent discussion, mainly between Allin and Alejandro
and myself, about various passages in Part 2 of Volume 3 in a more general
perspective. Unfortunately, this requires a longer discussion. I apologize
for the length. But I think the issues are important. I hope it is worth
your while.
1. MARX'S THEORY IS A THEORY OF MONEY CAPITAL
To begin with, I think that Marx's theory is about MONEY and prices from the
very beginning and throughout the three volumes of Capital. Volume 1 is not
about a "value system" (i.e. a labor-time system) that is completely
independent of prices, which is then followed by a "price system" in Volume
3. Money and prices are derived in Chapter 1 of Volume 1 as the "necessary
form of appearance" of the value of commodities (more about this in #2
below). The central concept of capital is defined in Chapter 4 of Volume 1
as "MONEY that becomes more MONEY" (M-C-M'). The title of Part 2 of Volume
1 is "The Transformation of MONEY into Capital." The main question of
Volume 1 or the main phenomenon to be explained is how money becomes more
money, i.e. to explain the origin of the increment of money or of the
surplus-value that is the essence of capital. The main question is not the
determination of the labor-values of commodities or the magnitude of
surplus-labor. The phenomenon of the increment of money is explained on the
basis of surplus-labor; but the surplus-labor is not the phenomenon to be
explained. This question is clearly posed in Part 2 of Volume 1 and then
answered in Part 3 and beyond. Marx concluded his theory of surplus-value
in Chapter 7 of Volume 1 as follows: "The trick has at last worked: MONEY
has been transformed into capital." (p. 301) Constant capital and variable
capital are defined in Chapter 8 as the two components of the money-capital
invested in the first phase of the circulation of capital (i.e. M = C + V).
Etc.
2. THE TWO DIMENSIONS OF VALUE
As Alejandro has already emphasized out in (3604) and other posts, the
concept of value in Marx's theory is two-dimensional: value refers not only
to the abstract labor contained in commodities, but also to the visible
expression of this abstract labor as sums of money or prices. Marx
referred to the abstract labor contained in commodities as the 'SUBSTANCE"
or the "ESSENCE" of the value of commodities and money and prices as the
"NECESSARY FORM OF APPEARANCE" of the value of commodities. As already
mentioned above, Marx derived this NECESSARY RELATION between the substance
and the form of value in Section 3 of Chapter 1. From then on, the "value
of commodities" has this double meaning. In some contexts, the value of
commodities refers specifically to the substance of value (the abstract
labor contained in commodities) and in other contexts, the value of
commodities refers specifically to the form of appearance of value (money or
prices). This sometimes makes the interpretation of some passages
difficult, but this double meaning of the "value of commodities" should
always be kept in mind. Most of Marx's examples of the "value" of
commodities are expressed in terms of prices, e.g. the example to illustrate
his theory of surplus-value in Chapter 7. But price in Volume 1 is still
very abstract; it abstracts from the distribution of surplus-value and other
more concrete aspects.
3. CAPITAL IN GENERAL / MANY CAPITALS
Another important aspect of my interpretation, which has less bearing on the
current debate and which may not be shared by other adherents of the "single
system" view, is the distinction between capital in general and many
capitals. In my view, Volume 1 is about capital in general, or the total
social capital (i.e. is a "macroeconomic theory"). The main question of
Volume 1 is the determination of the total amount of surplus-value (or
delta-M) produced in the capitalist economy as a whole. Volume 3 is then an
analysis of many capitals, or is about the division of this total amount of
surplus-value into individual parts, first into the profits of the
individual branches of production and the further division into industrial
profit, merchant profit, interest, and rent.
The all-important premise of Marx's theory of the distribution of
surplus-value in Volume 3 is that the total amount of surplus-value is
determined prior to and independent of this later "distribution" of
surplus-value by the prior analysis of capital in general. The total amount
of surplus-value is then taken as given in this later analysis of
distribution and is not altered by this distribution. This key premise is
very clear in all the drafts of Volume 3. This premise can be sustained
only in the "single-system" interpretation.
Therefore, I argue that the transition from Volume 1 to Volume 3 is not a
transition from a "value system" to a "price system", but is instead a
transition from an analysis of total prices and the total surplus-value to
an analysis of individual prices of production and individual component
parts of surplus-value.
4. INITIAL GIVENS ARE SUMS OF MONEY CAPITAL
The aspect of my interpretation that has the most to do with the recent
discussion of the cost price of commodities is the nature of the initial
givens in Marx's theory.
I argue that the initial givens both in Marx's theory of surplus-value and
in his theory of prices of production is the sum of money capital consumed
in the production of commodities (or the initial M in the circulation of
capital: M - C - M', where M = C + V). The main question of Marx's theory
of surplus-value is how this GIVEN sum of money capital increases it
magnitude, or becomes more money. In other words, how do capitalists
withdraw more money from circulation than they throw into circulation, with
the initial money capital thrown into circulation taken as given. Marx's
question is not: how do given means of production and means of subsistence
produce commodities ("the production of commodities by means of
commodities") that have a price greater than their costs. Nor is the
question: how do given means of production and means of subsistence produce
commodities with greater embodied labor than the labor embodied in the means
of production and the means of subsistence (the standard interpretation).
The question is rather how the given sum of money is transformed into
capital by increasing its magnitude.
I have discussed my reasons for this interpretation of the initial givens of
Marx's theory as sums of money capital in several recent articles and I
summarized these reasons in an OPEL post last Spring in a discussion with
Simon (2267), which I would be happy to repost if anyone is interested. The
main points are: (1) Marx's general formula for capital, M - C - M', begins
with a sum of money. (2) The logical relation between Parts, 1, 2, and 3 of
Volume 1, according to which the concept of money is developed as the
logical presupposition to his theory of capital and surplus-value. This
logical development is completely ignored in the standard ("physical
quantities") interpretation. There is no overall interpretation of the
logical development from value to money and from money to capital in the
first three parts of Volume 1. It is simply asserted that in Chapter 7,
Marx suddenly ignored the careful, thorough logical development of the
previous chapters and assumed out of nowhere given physical quantities of
means of production and means of subsistence. (3) Marx's methodological
principle of "historical specificity" which requires that the explanatory
concepts of a theory of capitalism should refer to the specific aspects of
capitalism (e.g. money-capital), not to the general features which
capitalism shares with all other social forms of production (e.g. physical
inputs and outputs). (4) The numerous passages in which Marx explicitly
stated that the quantities of money-capital that initiates the circulation
of capital are given or presupposed in his theory of surplus-value and
prices of production. One especially clear passage from the "Results" is
worth repeating:
Here, where we are concerned with MONEY only as the
*point of departure* for the *immediate process of
production*, we can confine ourselves to the observation:
capital exists here as yet only as a given quantum of
value = M (money), in which all use-value is extinguished,
so that nothing but the monetary form remains... Thus
in the original simple expression of capital (or capital to be)
as money or value, every link with use-value has been broken
and entirely destroyed... If the original capital is a
quantum of value = X, it becomes capital and fulfills its
purpose by changing into X + dX, i.e. into a quantum of
MONEY or value = the original sum + a balance over the
original sum. In other words, it is transformed into the
GIVEN amount of MONEY + additional money, into the *GIVEN
value + surplus-value*. As a *GIVEN sum of MONEY*, x is
a constant from the outset and hence its increment = 0.
In the course of the process, therefore, it must be changed
into another element which contains a variable element.
Our task is to discover this component and at the same
time to identify the mediations by means of which a constant
magnitude becomes a variable one. (C.I. 976-77; capitalized
emphases added)
This passage suggests that Marx's methodological procedure is to take an
initial sum of money as given, and to explain how this given sum of money is
increased in magnitude. Notice that in this analysis, "all use-value is
extinguished, so that nothing but the monetary form remains ... every link
with use-value has been broken and entirely destroyed."
5. THEORY OF TOTAL PRICE AND TOTAL SURPLUS-VALUE
Marx's aggregate theory of price and surplus-value presented in Volume 1 can
then be expressed as follows:
P = C + MVA
= C + (V + S)
and S = MVA - V
In this theory, C and V are taken as given as the sums of money capital
consumed in the production of commodities and MVA (the money value added)
is equal to the product of the quantity of current labor (L) and the
monetary expression of value (m) (i.e. MVA = mL). The theory assumes that
the first component of the price of commodities is the constant capital
consumed in the production of commodities, whether or not this constant
capital is proportional to the labor-time embodied in the means of
production (much more on this below). The constant capital is taken as
given, not derived from given means of production.
The key issue here is the determination of constant capital and variable
capital. For purposes of brevity, I will focus on the determination of
constant capital in the following discussion; the issues are essentially the
same for variable capital.
The standard interpretation is that constant capital is derived from given
means of production. In Volume 1, constant capital is equal to the
labor-time embodied in the given means of production, and in Volume 3
constant capital is equal to the price of production of these same given
means of production.
But I (and others) have argued (as above) that constant capital is NOT
derived from given means of production, but is instead itself TAKEN AS
GIVEN, as the money-capital used to purchase the means of production.
Furthermore, since this given money constant capital is identically equal to
the PRICE of production of the means of production, and, since the price of
production of the means of production is in general not proportional to the
labor-time embodied in them, the given money constant capital is also in
general not proportional to the labor-time embodied in the means of
production. But this given constant capital is nonetheless the first
component of the price of commodities, even though it is not necessarily
proportional to the labor-time embodied in the means of production.
Marx provisionally assumed in Volume 1 that the prices of the means of
production are equal to their respective values, because there was no basis
for any other assumption consistent with the labor theory of value, since
the prices of individual commodities, or of subsets of commodities such as
the means of production and means of subsistence, are not determined in the
Volume 1 analysis of capital in general. Strictly speaking, this equality
applies only to the total commodity product of the total social capital.
However, this provisional assumption plays no essential role in Marx's
theory of surplus-value in Volume 1. The magnitude of constant capital is
not DETERMINED by the labor-time embodied in the means of production, i.e.
it is not DERIVED from given means of production. Instead, the magnitude of
constant capital is TAKEN AS GIVEN as the quantity of money-capital that
purchases means of production in the first phase of the circulation of
capital. The constant capital that is the first component of the price of
commodities (or the "value transferred" to the price of the output) is equal
to the money capital used to purchase the means of production (pro-rated
over the lifetime of these means of production), WHETHER OR NOT this
quantity of money capital is proportional to the labor-time embodied in the
means of production.
The quantity of money constant capital that is taken as given in Marx's
theory, like other every quantity of money in Marx's theory, is assumed to
represent a definite quantity of abstract labor, i.e. is assumed to be the
"necessary form of appearance" of abstract labor. As discussed above, this
function of money as the form of appearance of abstract labor was the main
conclusion of Part 1 of Volume 1, and is then taken as given (or as a
predetermined result) in the remainder of the three volumes, and in the
theory of surplus-value in particular.
However, the quantity of abstract labor represented by the given money
constant capital is not necessarily equal to the labor-time embodied in the
means of production. The precise quantity of abstract labor (Lc)
represented by the given sum of money-capital depends on the value of money
(1/m), and is determined by the following equation:
Lc = C / m
This quantity of abstract labor represented by the constant capital will be
equal to the labor-time embodied in the means of production if and only if
the price of the means of production is proportional to the labor-time
embodied in the means of production. This is what Marx assumed in Volume 1.
Under this assumption, the price of commodities ( = C + MVA) is proportional
to the total (direct and indirect) labor-time embodied in the commodities.
However, it is in general not true that the price of the means of production
is proportional to the labor-time embodied in the means of production.
Under these more realistic conditions, the quantity of abstract labor
represented by the money constant capital is not equal to the labor-time
embodied in the means of production, and the price of commodities is not
proportional to the total (direct and indirect) labor-time embodied in the
commodities.
Nonetheless, this is still a "labor theory of value" and, more precisely, a
"surplus labor theory of surplus-value" because: (1) the money value added
component is proportional to the quantity current abstract labor; (2) the
money surplus-value is proportional to the quantity of current surplus
labor; and (3) the price of the means of production is ultimately regulated
by the labor-time required to produce them, even though the former is in
general not proportional to the latter.
6. CHAPTER 1 OF VOLUME 3
Some of the clearest textual evidence for this "monetary" interpretation of
Marx's theory comes from Chapter 1 of Volume 3, which summarizes Marx's
theory of value and surplus-value as the basis for the further development
of the concepts of cost-price, profit, the rate of profit and prices of
production.
In this chapter, the cost price of commodities is defined as the sum of
constant capital and variable capital (i.e, K = C + V). Since constant
capital and variable capital are defined in terms of money (the money
capital used to purchase the means of production and labor-power), the cost
price of commodities is also defined in terms of money, not in terms of
embodied labor-time.
Furthermore, the "value" of commodities is discussed as equal to the sum of
the cost-price of commodities and the surplus-value contained in commodities.
value = K + S
Since the cost-price and the surplus-value components are defined in terms
of money, so is the value of commodities, the sum of these components, which
is always discussed in this chapter in terms of money. Otherwise, this
equation would be nonsensical, with money units on the right-hand side and
labor-time quantities on the left-hand side. To emphasize that value here
refers to the monetary expression of value, or the abstract price of
commodities (without consideration of the distribution of surplus-value), we
could refer to this value as the "money value" of commodities (MV) , in the
same sense that we have been referring to the "money value added" in recent
discussions, so that the above equation can be written as: MV = K + S.
In the opening paragraphs of Chapter 1, Marx wrote:
The value of any commodity C produced in the capitalist manner
can be depicted by the formula: C = c + v + s. If we subtract from
the value of this product the surplus-value s, there remains a mere
equivalent or replacement value in commodities for the capital value
c + v laid out on the elements of production.
Notice that c + v is discussed as the "capital value laid out," not in terms
of the labor-times embodied in the means of production and the means of
subsistence. Marx continued, and these variables are expressed explicitly in
terms of money
(substituting $'s for Marx's pounds):
Let us say that the production of a certain article requires a capital
expenditure of $500: $20 for wear and tear of the instruments of
labor, $380 for raw materials and $100 for labor-power. If we take
the rate of surplus-value as 100 per cent, the value of the product is
400c + 100v + 100s = $600.
After deducting the surplus-value of $100, there remains a commodity
value of $500, and this simply replaces the capital expenditure of $500.
This part of the value of the commodity which replaces the price of the
means of production consumed and the labor-power employed, simply
replaces what the commodity cost the capitalist himself and is therefore
the cost price of the commodity, as far as he is concerned. (C.I. 118)
We can see in this passage that the "money value" of the commodity is equal
to the sum of the cost price and the surplus-value and that all these
variables are expressed in terms of money. We can also see that the cost
price is the component of the value of the commodity that replaces the PRICE
of the means of production and the labor-power, which is not necessarily
proportional to the labor-times embodied in the means of production and the
means of subsistence.
Marx then went on to emphasize that, although the "value" of commodities can
be expressed as the sum of the cost-price and the surplus-value, this
equation tells us nothing about the determination of value, because the two
different parts of the cost-price (the constant capital and the variable
capital) play entirely different roles in the determination of the value of
commodities.
Yet the category of cost price has nothing to do with the formation of
the commodity value or the process of capital's valorization...
We know from Volume 1 (Chapter 9, p. 320) that the value of the
product newly formed, in this case $600, is composed of (1) the
reappearing value of the constant capital of $400 spent on the means
of production, and (2) a newly produced value of $200. The cost
price of the commodity, $500, comprises the reappearing 400c, plus
a half of the newly produced value of $200 (100v), two elements of
commodity value that are completely different as far as their origins
are concerned. (C.III. 119; Penguin)
In other words, the "money value" of commodities is determined by the sum of
the constant capital consumed and the money value added by current labor
(MV = C + MVA), as discussed above.
Marx then went on to say that the constant capital component of the value of
commodities
exists as a component of the commodity's value only because it existed
previously as a component of the capital advanced. The constant capital
that was spent is thus replaced by the portion of the commodity value that
it itself adds to this commodity value.
This is a clear statement of the main point I am trying to emphasize - that
the first component of the "money value" of commodities is equal to the
constant capital consumed in the production of the commodities. This is
true whether or not this constant capital is proportional to the labor-time
embodied in the means of production.
On the other hand, the variable capital does not become a component of the
price of the product. Instead, the variable capital is replaced by living
labor and this living labor produced money value added that becomes the
second component of the value of commodities. This money value added
component of the value of commodities both replaces the variable capital
expended and provides the surplus-value (the excess money) of capitalists.
The passage from Chapter 9 of Volume 1 to which Marx referred in the passage
quoted above provides further evidence of the "monetary" interpretation
presented here:
The surplus-value generated in the production process by C, the capital
advanced, i.e. the valorization of the value of the capital C, presents
itself to us first as the amount by which the value of the product exceeds
the value of its constituent elements.
The capital C is made up of two components, one the sum of money c
laid out on the means of production, and the other the sum of money v
expended on labor-power; c represents the portion of value which has
been turned into constant capital, v that turned into variable capital.
At the beginning, then, C = c + v: for example, if $500 is the capital
advanced, its components may be such that the $500 = $410 constant
+ $90 variable. When the process of production is finished, we get a
commodity whose value = (c + v) + s, where s is the surplus-value;
of, taking our former figures, the value of this commodity is ($410
constant + $90 variable) + $90 surplus. The original capital has now
changed from C to C', from $500 to $590. The difference is s, or a
surplus-value of $90. Since the value of the constituent elements is
equal to the value of the capital advanced, it is a mere tautology to
say that the excess of the value of the product over the value of its
constituent elements is equal to the valorization of the value of the
capital advanced, or to the surplus-value produced. (C.I. 320;
Penguin).
Notice here that constant capital and variable capital are defined once
again as the "sums of money laid out" on the means of production and
labor-power, not as the labor-times embodied in the means of production and
means of subsistence. Constant capital and variable capital are the
"capital advanced" which then becomes "constituent elements" of the money
"value" of the product. The surplus-value is the excess of the money
"value" of the product over the money capital consumed in production. The
valorization of capital is the increase in the money capital consumed.
7. THEORY OF PRICES OF PRODUCTION
We finally come to Part 2 of Volume 3 and the transformation of values into
prices of production. According to my interpretation, prices of production
are determined according to the following equation:
ppd(i) = c(i) + v(i) + r M(i)
where c(i) and v(i) are the sums of money capital consumed in each industry,
M(i) is the money capital advanced in each industry, and r is the general
rate of profit, as determined in the Volume 1 analysis of capital in
general. The main point to be emphasized here is that, in the
determination of prices of production, the magnitudes of constant capital
and variable capital are TAKEN AS GIVEN, not derived from given means of
production and means of subsistence, just as in Volume 1. The only
difference is that in Volume 3 the disaggregated quantities of constant
capital and variable capital in each industry are taken as given, rather
than the aggregate quantities of constant capital and variable capital, as
in Volume 1 (the sum of the disaggregated quantities of capital are by
assumption equal to the aggregate quantities of capital). THIS is the
reason why constant capital and variable capital do not have to be
transformed in the transition from the analysis of the total price and the
total surplus-value to the analysis of individual prices and individual
parts of surplus-value - because the SAME quantities of constant capital and
variable capital are TAKEN AS GIVEN, at both stages of the analysis, not
first determined as the labor-times embodied in the means of production and
the means of subsistence and then later determined as the prices of
production of these bundles of goods. This is also why the cost price of
commodities (the sum of constant capital and variable capital) is the same
for both the value and the price of production of commodities - because the
same quantities of consumed capital are taken as given in the determination
of both the value and the prices of production of commodities.
After the determination of prices of production, the value of commodities is
still equal to the sum of the constant capital and the money value added, as
in Part 1 just discussed, and thus the value of commodities still refers to
the "money value" of commodities, which in turn can be expressed as the sum
of the cost price of commodities and the surplus-value contained in
commodities. Surplus-value refers, as always, to the excess money over the
capital consumed.
With the determination of prices of production, the quantities of constant
capital and variable capital, and hence the cost price of commodities, are
no longer assumed to be proportional to the labor-times embodied in the
means of production and the means of subsistence. HOWEVER, this
determination of prices of production does NOT mean that the magnitudes of
constant capital and variable capital CHANGE, i.e. it does not mean that the
cost price of commodities changes, because, as just discussed, the
magnitudes of constant capital and variable capital (and hence the cost
price) are taken as given as the sums of money capital consumed in
production, not derived from given means of production and means of
subsistence. This is why the cost price of commodities is the SAME for BOTH
the values and the prices of production of commodities.
8. RECENT DISCUSSION
I think that important textual evidence from Part 2 of Volume 3 has been
presented in the recent discussion to support this interpretation:
1. The "omitted paragraph" that Alejandro discovered in Marx's original
manuscript that should be on p. 263 of the Penguin edition. This paragraph
explicitly states that the cost price of commodities is the SAME for both
the value and the price of production of commodities.
Alejandro and I have argued further that the cost price that is the same for
both the value and the price of production of commodities is equal to the
price of production (not the value) of the means of production and the means
of subsistence. More on this below.
2. The next two paragraphs on pp. 263-64 in which a numerical example is
presented (which Alejandro has summarized with his "hidden table"), which
includes both "average" and "non-average" commodities and in which it is
explicitly stated again that the SAME cost-price is a component of both the
value and the price of production of commodities.
3. The next paragraph which discusses the fact that after the determination
of prices of production the cost price of commodities will in general not be
proportional to the labor-times embodied in the means of production and the
means of subsistence. This paragraph ends with the following clear
statement that the surplus-value is nonetheless equal to the difference
between the value of commodities and the cost price of commodities, which
implies that the value of commodities is equal to the sum of the cost price
of commodities and the surplus-value, even though the cost price is no
longer proportional the labor-times embodied in the means of production and
the means of subsistence:
The cost price is a given precondition, independent of his, the
capitalist's, production, while the result of his production
is a commodity that contains SURPLUS-VALUE, and therefore an
excess VALUE over and above its COST PRICE. (emphasis added)
Alejandro has also emphasized this importance sentence.
4. The several discussions (in Chapters 9, 11, and 12) of commodities
produced with capitals of average composition that I have emphasized. The
main point of these discussions is that the price of production of these
"average" commodities is equal to the value of these commodities, and
neither their value not their price of production is effected by a change of
wages. These conclusions could only be true if the cost price is the SAME
for both the value and the price of production of these "average" commodities.
ALLIN has argued that the equality of the cost price for both the value and
the price of production of commodities mentioned in these passages does not
necessarily mean that the cost price must be equal to the price of
production of the means of production and the means of subsistence.
Instead, the cost price that is the same for both the value and the price of
production of the "average commodities" could be equal to the VALUE of the
means of production and the means of subsistence, as the first step in an
iterative transformation of values into prices of production.
However, I have argued in (3644) that Marx's discussion of the effect of a
change of wages in Chapter 11 of Part 2 explicitly assumes that prices of
production have already been determined and thus rules out Allin's
interpretation. I also argued that a closer look at the above passages in
which the equality of the cost price for both the value and the price of
production of commodities is discussed makes it appear very unlikely that
Marx could have been assuming in these passages that the cost price of
commodities was equal to their values. Allin has not yet responded to this
post.
ALLIN'S other main argument in his recent posts is based on the following
sentences from the beginning of Section 2 of Chapter 12 on "average"
commodities. These sentences are:
We have seen how a deviation in prices of production from values arises
from: 1) adding the average profit instead of the surplus-value
contained in a commodity to its cost-price; 2) the price of production,
which so deviates from the value of a commodity, entering into the
cost-price of other commodities as one of its elements, so that the
cost-price of a commodity may already contain a deviation from value in
those means of production consumed by it..."
Allin argues that this passage could be true only if the cost price of
commodities is NOT THE SAME for both the value and the price of production
of commodities. If the cost price were the same, then Marx's second point
above would not be true: a difference between the cost price in the
determination of value and the cost price in the determination of price of
production could not contribute to a difference in the value and the price
of production of the output because this first difference in the two cost
prices would not exist.
I think that Allin is correct that, in this passage, Marx was using value in
a different sense than in the very next paragraph and in the other passages
we have discussed above. Here Marx was using value in the abstract sense of
Volume 1, assuming that prices are equal to their values, rather than in the
more concrete sense of the value of commodities in Volume 3. But, given all
the textual evidence to the contrary that we have discussed above, I do not
think that this one passage is sufficient to conclude that this was Marx's
understanding of value after prices of production have been determined. The
contrary evidence includes the very next paragraph. The main point of this
section is that the price of production of "average" commodities is equal to
their value. As discussed above, this equality of the price of production
and the value of "average" commodities can be true only if the cost price of
commodities is the SAME for both the determinatioin of the value and the
price of production of these "average" commodities.
The opening sentences of this section emphasized by Allin are indeed
inconsistent with this main conclusion of the section. However, I do not
think that this is because Marx was confused or contradictory in his own
mind about the determination of the value of commodities after prices of
production have been determined. Rather, I think that Marx momentarily
slipped back into the Volume 1 sense of value. I think that was Marx was in
effect saying in these opening sentences is that the transformation from
values, AS WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT ABOUT VALUES IN VOLUME 1, to the more
concrete form of prices of production comes about in to two ways mentioned.
However, this does not imply that, after the determination of prices of
production in Volume 3, the value of commodities is equal to the sum of the
labor-time embodied in the means of production and the means of subsistence
and the surplus labor-time, as Allin's interpretation suggests. All the
passages discussed above, including in this very same section, indicate that
the value of commodities is equal to the sum of the constant capital
consumed and the money value added, or equal to the sum of the cost price
and the surplus-value, both before and after the determination of prices of
production in Volume 3. Under the Volume 1 assumption of prices equal to
their values, these two definitions are the same. But under the Volume 3
assumption of prices of production differing from their values, these two
definitions are no longer the same. All the other passages discussed above
suggest that Marx continued to emphasize that the value of commodities
continues to be equal to the cost price plus the surplus-value, and at the
same time emphasizes anew that it is now no longer assumed that this cost
price, which is a component of the value of commodities, is proportional to
the labor-times embodied in the means of production and the means of
subsistence.
Thanks for your attention. I look forward to your responses.
Comradely,
Fred