[OPE-L:4359] Re: Re: Price-Value Equivalence!

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Sun Oct 29 2000 - 17:18:43 EST

"Andrew_Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com> said, on 10/28/00:

>Paul:  "... but I do think the abstraction in Volume 1 from variations
>across industries of differing compositions of capital is of

>I've been trying to indicate that Marx doesn't abstract from unequal
>compositions of capital in Vol. I.  He abstracts (from Ch. 6 onward, and
>then not always) from price-value deviations.  Equal value compositions
>are one factor that, together with others, could ensure that prices =
>values, but there are other ways of obtaining that equality.  E.g., one
>could let profit rates differ.

I understood your point, Andrew.  But I think equal profit rates are
rather easier to accept than equal compositions.  Thus, I focus on the
more difficult presumption.  Second, for profit rates to vary JUST enough
to compensate for variations in compositions of capital seems farfetched.

Having said this, I reassert that the presumption of price-value
equivalence in Volume 1 is an important indication that Marx is NOT so
very interested in the non-equivalence cases.  Those cases become a
nuisance and a distraction from more important problems.

>Marx doesn't even do that.  He simply stipulates the equality as an

Yes, but see my previous answer.

>One reason why this is important is that, if one asserts that he's
>dealing with the whole social capital when explaining the origin of
>surplus-value, one misses the fact that he's locating the origin in the
>production process of an *individual* (i.e., each individual) capital,
>and one begins to think of profit as an aggregate phenomenon, which
>depends on a whole complex of conditions and interdependencies.  For
>someone like yourself who emphasizes class struggle, I wouldn't think
>that's an attractive vantage point.

I got a little lost in this paragraph.  Is it the focus on "individual"
capital which is supposed to emphasize class struggle or the focus on the
aggreate?  In either case, I don't quite understand want you to convey.

Pau Z.

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