[OPE-L:3634] Re: Re: Re: Fred M's interpretation

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@phoenix.Princeton.EDU)
Date: Wed Aug 09 2000 - 18:45:38 EDT

[ show plain text ]

Fred wrote:

> Hi Rakesh,
> Thanks very much for your recent posts on my interpretation of constant
> capital. I am sorry that I have not yet had the time to respond.
> I am restricting my very limited OPEL time these days to the more general
> issues raised in my discussion with Ajit (i.e. what is Volume 1 about?).
> I hope to have some more time next week to respond to your posts.

OK, I guess.

But my posts are connected to these issues. Since you
reconstruct Vol I as an argument for why money price is the necessary form
of the appearance of value (vol i also already underlines that even
though value can only be *represented* as price, we should expect that
such *representation* is necessarily *misrepresentation* as PM jr puts
it), it follows as you have shown that the inputs in Marx's Capital 3
tableaux must already, contra Meek and Sweezy, be in prices.

Note how in support of the strongest possible interpretation of why
price is the necessary form of appearance of value, I offered the
analogies to QM to suggest that it should not be dismissed on common
sense grounds that price measurement is indeed a precondition for value
and value emerging. I called attention to the important passage from the
Critique of Political Economy where Marx considers this puzzling problem.

At any rate, I agree with your argument here (and thus Grossmann,
Mage, Mattick Jr, Carchedi, Alejandro and you who all make the same
point), but that then raises the question I have posed about
Marx's assumption that the value of these inputs is given by
their price.

Marx clearly says that this assumption must be relaxed
(and on the basis of what his own transformation shows he is surely
correct) and since Marx's own textual evidence has not been
answered--though it has been the main exhibit in the Sweezy-Meek
critique since it is claimed to provide Marx's own imprimatur to it--
there has remained this weakness with the monetary-macro interpretation.
So the criticism I submitted initially on July 4th is quite at the heart
of the general questions you are pursuing.

All the best, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT