[OPE-L:4310] Price-Value Equivalence! [was "Logic and illogic in defending Marx"]

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Thu Oct 26 2000 - 20:41:47 EDT

Rakesh, Several months ago, replying to Andrew, I posted [3738] a number
of quotations from Volume 1 showing that Marx knew exactly what he was
assuming for his Volume 1 discussion, i.e, all industries operate at your
average (the standard deviation of compositions of capital is zero)!

    "The calculations given in the text are intended merely as
illustrations. We have in fact. assumed that prices = values. We shall,
however, see, in Book Ill., that even in the case of average prices the
assumption cannot be made in this very simple manner." (Chapter 9, fn. at
end of Section 1)

    "our assumption, that all commodities, including labour-power, are
bought and sold at their full value" (Chapter 12, third paragraph)

    "I assume (1) that commodities are sold at their value; (2) that the
price of labour-power rises occasionally above its value, but never sinks
below it." (Chapter 17, second paragraph)

    "On the one hand, then, we assume that the capitalist sells at their
value the commodities he has produced, without concerning ourselves either
about the new forms that capital assumes while in the sphere of
circulation, or about the concrete conditions of reproduction hidden under
these forms." (Part VII, The Accumulation of Capital, fourth paragraph)

Paul Z.

******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU> said, on 10/25/00:

>So if in vol 1, Marx equates the surplus value produced by a firm  with
>the profit it appropriates, he obviously has in mind "an average 
>industry" which Meek claims is similar to Sraffa's basic industry. It  is
>obvious that Marx knew perfectly well in vol 1 that commodities do  not
>exchange at value.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST