Before asking where market prices fit into the picture, why not ask
where market values would be located? Here, we encounter one of
Marx's changes in plan. In the Jan. 1863 plan, what we know as
Chap. 10 of Vol. 3 did not exist. Rather the notion of
prices of production was to be followed by rent in that plan.
Note that rent is thereby introduced prior to the FRP.
I think it might be a good idea to attempt to account for the
change as well as looking at market values both before and
after rent prior to considering market prices.
John
At 07:10 AM 3/13/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Oops.
>
>In my last post [663], I started by dividing several options by 1), 2),
>and 3) and then switched to a), b), and c). To make the ordering more
>consistent and thus the meaning more intelligible, it should read as
>follows:
>-----------------------------------
><snip>
>To return to the question of market prices: it seems to me that there are
>several options.
>
>1) develop it as part of an analysis of competition immediately after the
>subject matter of _Capital_. In other words, after Book 1 (Capital) and
>before Book 2 (Landed Property).
>
>2) develop the subject matter of competition after an analysis of the 3
>major classes (Books 1-3), but prior to Book 4 (The State).
>
>3) develop this subject in Book 5 (International Trade) and/or Book 6
>(World Market and Crises).
>
>While there might be some justification for 1), it pre-supposes that the
>subject matter of market prices requires the prior analysis of the
>subjects of Books 2-4. Yet, this doesn't make a lot of methodological
>sense to me. E.g. what would be the logic for analyzing market prices
>after "The State"? Shouldn't one first analyze the law of motion of
>capital at a level of concreteness that includes market prices before
>analyzing the state-form?
>
>2) also seems to me to be an uneasy fit. E.g. why should market prices be
>developed after an analysis of Book 2 (Landed Property) and Book 3
>(Wage-Labour)? In other words, would the subject matter of market prices
>require a prior analysis of landed property and wage-labour? I did see why
>that would be the case.
>
>3) seems the most logical alternative. Yet, it would seem to fly in the
>face of what Marx suggested was next in Chapter 52 (Classes) of Volume III
>(of Book 1). <snip>
>-----------------------------------
>In solidarity, Jerry
>
>