[OPE-L:3689] Re: Re: Re: Rakesh's interpretation

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@Princeton.EDU)
Date: Thu Aug 17 2000 - 09:40:59 EDT

[ show plain text ]

Fred asks:

>My main point in recent posts to Rakesh and Ajit, as stated above, is that
>Volume 1 is mainly about the determination of dM. So, when Marx says
>something like "the value of the commodity is x shillings" in Volume 1
>(e.g. Chapter 7), the shillings are not a convenient indirect measure of
>labor-time (why not use labor-time measures directly?), but are instead
>a necessary part of the explanation of where dM comes from.
>Let me ask you the same questions I have been asking Rakesh and Ajit
>(without much response): What would you say is the main question of
>Volume 1?

the effects of the circuit of capital on the production process.

 What are the main variables to be determined?

Composition of capital (TCC, VCC, OCC), rate of surplus value.

 How do you
>interpret Chapter 7 in which the objective seems to be to explain
>"how money is transformed into capital" (i.e. into more money)?

the adequation of the production process to the circulation of capital.

Despite our disagreement over what determines the value transferred from
the means of production in Marx's system after the price=value assumption
is dropped in the third volume, Fred, may I reiterate that agree completely
with your critique of the Bortkiewicz-Sweezy-Meek interpretation of the Vol
3 transformation tableaux's cost prices being in values, instead of the
money sums that the capitalist has laid out as both variable and constant
capital. It could not be otherwise due to the monetary nature of the
capitalist system that Marx analyzes in Vol 1, as you have pointed out.
There is indeed no transformation from a value system to a price system.
You are absolutely correct.

Yours, Rakesh

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