[OPE-L:4223] Re: Re: Logic and illogic in defending Marx

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Sun Oct 22 2000 - 13:30:28 EDT

Andrew wrote in 4220

>In reply to OPE-L 4217.
>Rakesh:  "[In] the first two paragraphs of Capital 3, p. 309 ...
>I read Marx here as saying that the value transferred from the means
>of production is determined by their actual labor value, not the
>value of the money which was needed to purchase them."
>I don't see this at all.  The commodity's value is k + s and its price of
>production is k + p, where k is the cost-price.  He says that the price
>of production will differ from the value, not only because p differs from
>s, but also because k diverges from the value of its (material) elements.


>The reason it diverges is that means of production and subsistence are
>bought at prices differing from values.  This divergence is already
>contained in the cost price.


>   So if the value of a means of production is
>V and its price is P, the divergence is (P - V)


>  and the value transferred
>is V + divergence = V + (P - V) = P.

But this does not follow. Why is the value transferred P, not V? Does 
anything that has a P then transfer value? I asked this to Fred, he 
never answered.  Why is not "the value of the means of production 
consumed", not their cost price, which determines the value 
transferred from the means of production by labor to the output?

I understand that this assumption is necessary to solve the 
transformation problem under the static conditions so favored by 
economists.  But is there any other warrant for it?

All the best, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST