Subject: [OPE-L:1655] Re: Re: determination of value transferred
From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 09 1999 - 21:00:53 EST
Thanks to Alejandro for his response to my last post. This is a brief
reply to Alejandro. It should be read along with my latest response to
Andrew.
As I understand it, Alejandro is arguing that the value transferred from
means of production to the output (e.g. cotton and yarn) is determined at
the point in time that the cotton enters into production. Therefore,
according to this interpretation, if there is a change in the value of the
cotton after the cotton is purchased but before production begins (i.e.
during what I have called phase 1), then the value transferred from the
cotton to the yarn will also change. However, if there is a change in the
value of the cotton after a given batch of cotton has entered production
and before the output is sold (i.e. during my phases 2 or 3), then the
value transferred from this batch of cotton will NOT change.
Alejandro's argument seems to be that, since the cotton no longer exists
as a use-value after it has entered production, the value transferred from
the cotton can no longer change after this point in time. The value
transferred from cotton to yarn can change only as long the cotton exists
as a separate entity.
However, I think that Alejandro's argument confuses value as a social
magnitude and value as an individual magnitude. I argue that the value
transferred from a given batch of cotton depends, not on the actual
labor-time required to produce this cotton at some time in the past, but
rather on the average, social labor-time required to produce this cotton
at the present time (i.e. current, social labor-time). The fact that a
particular batch of cotton no longer exists as a use-value does not imply
that the value transferred from this batch of cotton can no longer change.
If the value transferred is determined by the CURRENT, social labor-time
(as I argue it was for Marx), then this value transferred from a
particular batch of cotton will change if the current, social labor-time
required to produce cotton changes, even if this batch of cotton no longer
exists (except as transformed into yarn).
Furthermore, Marx clearly and explicitly stated in a number of passages
that the value transferred from the means of production (often cotton as
an example) CHANGES, if there is a change in the current, social
labor-time required to produce these means of production. This change of
the value transferred from the e.g. cotton to the yarn applies clearly and
explicitly, not only to cotton not yet worked up into yarn, but also to
cotten already transformed into yarn ("at whatever stage of completion";
C.III, p. 207). If the current, social labor-time required to produce
the cotton changes ANYTIME up to the sale of the yarn, then the value
transferred from the cotton to the yarn also changes as a result. I
have just finished a draft of a paper (my IWGVT paper for next year) in
which I present all the passages in which Marx discussed the determination
of the value transferred from the means of production in the specific case
of a change in the current labor-time required to produce these means of
production. I will put this paper on my website tomorow for anyone who is
interested.
Below is a selection of five passages from this paper in which Marx
explicitly discussed the change in the value transferred to commodities
which are in the process of production or which have already been produced
and are circulating on the market. These passages run all the way through
Marx's manuscripts (from the Poverty of Philosophy in 1847 to the finished
versions of Volume 1 of Capital). These passages show that Marx was clear
and consistent throughout the various stages of his theoretical
development about this determination of the value transferred from the
means of production by CURRENT, social labor-time.
Please note especially the final passage from Chapter 8 of Volume 1 of
Capital, which is the last thing Marx wrote on this subject and also the
only thing Marx published on this subject. So I think that this passage
should be considered Marx's final and definitive statement on this subject
of the determination of the value transferred from the means of production
by current, social labor-time (especially since it is consistent with
everything else Marx wrote on this subject). Here, Marx clearly stated:
"the cotton already spun before the rise, and perhaps circulating in the
market as yarn, similarly transfers to the product twice its original
value."
Also please note the passage from Chapter 6 of Volume 3 which is the
next-to-last thing Marx wrote on this subject. Here Marx stated again
clearly: "... if an increase in the price of raw material takes place with
a significant amount of finished goods already present on the market, at
whatever stage of completion, then the value of these commodities
rises and there is a corresponding increase in the value of the capital
involved.
Below are the passages, in chronological order:
POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY (1847)
Every new invention that enables the production in one hour of that which
has hitherto been produced in two hours *depreciates all similar products
on the market*. Competition forces the producer to sell the product of
two hours as cheaply as the product of one hour. Competition carries into
effect the law according to which the relative value of a product is
determined by the labor time needed to produce it. Labor time serving as
the measure of marketable value becomes in this way the law of continual
depreciation of labor. We will say more. There will be *depreciation not
only of the commodities brought into the market, but also of the
instruments of production and of whole plants*. This fact was already
pointed out by Ricardo when he said: "By constantly increasing the
facility of production, we constantly diminish the value of some of the
commodities *before produced * ... (PP, p. 65; emphasis added)
GRUNDRISSE (1857-58)
In my phamplet against Proudhon, I showed that real value itself -
independently of its rule over the oscillations of the market price (seen
apart from its role as the law of these oscillations) - in turn negates
itself and constantly posits the real value of commodities in
contradiction with its character, that it constantly depreciates or
appreciates the real value of *already produced commodities* ... .
(G, p.137; emphasis added)
MANUSCRIPT of 1861-63
We come now to C - M, the *phase during which the product circulates*,
waiting to be changed into money ...
If in the preceding example, the price of x lbs. of twist = $120
(including cost - $100, of which say $80 for raw material, i.e. cotton +
$20 surplus value), and if the value of cotton fell suddenly, from an
extraordinary harvest by 60 p.c., then the *cotton worked up in the twist
floating upon the market would sink as well as the cotton in its raw
state* ...
Such a change of value *directly depreciates the capital (productive),
if the change happens during the phase, C - M* ... (MECW. 33, p. 248;
emphasis added)
CAPITAL, VOLUME 3 (1864-65)
If the price of a raw material changes - cotton for example - the price of
cotton goods rises as well: both semi-finished goods such as yarn, and
finished products such as cloth, etc. which are produced with this more
expensive cotton. And cotton that has not yet been worked up, but is still
in the warehouse, rises just as much in value as cotton that is in the
course of manufacture. As the retrospective expression of more labor-time,
this cotton adds a higher value to the product which it goes into as a
component than it possessed originally and the capitalist paid for it.
Thus *if an increase in the price of raw material takes place with a
significant amount of finished goods already present on the market, at
whatever stage of completion, then the value of these commodities
rises and there is a corresponding increase in the value of the capital
involved*. The same applies to stocks of raw material, etc. in the hands
of the producers... .
The reverse is true with a fall in the price of raw materials which would
otherwise increase the rate of profit, if all other circumstances were the
same. *The same commodities on the market, articles still in preparation
and stocks of raw materials are all devalued*, and this counteracts the
simultaneous rise in the rate of profit. (C.III. 207-08; emphases added)
CAPITAL, VOLUME 1 (1867)
The definition of constant capital and variable capital given above by no
means excludes the possibility of a change of value in its elements.
Suppose that the price of cotton is one day sixpence a pound, and the next
day, as a result of a failure of the cotton crop, a shilling a pound. Each
pound of the cotton bought at sixpence, and worked up after the rise of
value, transfers to the product a value of one shilling; and *the cotton
already spun before the rise, and perhaps circulating in the market as
yarn, similarly transfers to the product twice its original value* ...
The value of a commodity is certainly determined by the quantity of labor
contained in it, but this quantity is itself SOCIALLY DETERMINED. If the
amount of labor-time socially necessary for the production of any
commodity alters - and a given weight of cotton represents more labor
after a bad harvest than after a good one - this reacts back on all the
old commodities of the same type, because they are only individuals of the
same species, and their value at any given time is measured by the labor
socially necessary to produce them, i.e. by the labor necessary under the
social conditions existing at the time. (C.I, pp. 317-18; emphasis added)
Alejandro, I would very much appreciate your interpretation of these
passages, when you have the time. I look forward to further discussion.
Comradely,
Fred
P.S Andrew has agreed with me in recent posts (please see my latest
reply) that the value transferred from the means of production may change,
even for commodities already produced but not yet sold (commodities in my
phase 3) (although he continues to argue that the value transferred to
commodities currently in the process of production will not change).
This revaluation of the value transferred to commodities in phase 3 occurs
even though the raw materials consumed in the production of these
commodities no longer exist as separate commodities. Alejandro, you seem
to disagree with Andrew on this revaluation of commodities in phase 3
(commodities produced, but not yet sold). Do I understand you correctly?
Thanks again.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:14 EST