[OPE-L:4545] reply to Fred (5)

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Mon Nov 20 2000 - 04:36:27 EST

>6.  In your interpretation (as I understand it), C and V are derived from
>given physical quantities of the means of production and the means of
>subsistence, as the "direct prices" of these given means of production and
>means of subsistence.  In this case, C and V are not equal to the actual
>magnitudes of money-capital invested to purchase means of production and
>labor-power in the real capitalist economy, but are  rather HYPOTHETICAL
>magnitudes derived from the given physical quantities. 
>In my view, the disadvantages of this interpretation are:
>(1) C and V do not correspond to the actual quantities of money-capital
>invested in the real capitalist economy to purchase means of production
>and labor-power. 
>(2) Consequently, the surplus-value determined in Volume 1 is not the
>actual dM in the real capitalist economy.

Again, the actual magnitudes of C, V and dM are not the crucial 
questions in volume I. The important point is how these variables are 

dM/M  =     _______
             c/v + 1

>(3)  Therefore, when the analysis moves on to Volume 3 and to actual
>quantities of money and prices, constant capital and variable capital from
>Volume 1 will not be equal to these actual quantities of money and prices
>in Volume 3.  It is for this reason that, according to your
>interpretation, that C and V "MUST BE TRANSFORMED" from "direct prices" to
>prices of production.  And as a result, the total surplus-value determined
>in Volume 1 will not be equal to the total profit determined in Volume 3.

No,  total surplus value is determined in the same manner in my 
interpretation in volume 3 as in volume 1: M' minus M.

>I don't think this was Marx's logical method.  I don't think Marx first
>determined hypothetical magnitudes in Volume 1, which would then have to
>be transformed into actual quantities in Volume 3.

Here we disagree.

>   Rather, I think Marx
>first determined the actual total surplus-value (or dM) in Volume 1, and
>for that purpose he took as given the actual quantities of C and V
>invested.  He then determined in Volume 3 the division of this total
>amount of actual dM into actual individual parts.

  This is indeed what Marx did because he did not transform the inputs 
and complete the transformation.

  But if one transforms the inputs and thereby modifies cost price, 
one must modify the sum of surplus value in the opposite direction. 
Have you understood why I have been arguing this? It has been my main 

Meek writes  the transformation equations this way (I'll use E for sigma)

(1) c1 + v1 (1 + r) = a1p1
(2) c2 + v2 (1 + r) = a2p2
(3) c3 + v3 (1 + r) = a3p3
(4) r[E (c + v)] = Es

Es is of course the sum of surplus value in the unmodified scheme. I 
have proposed another equation 4 in which the sum of surplus value is 
determined as total price minus cost price as modified consequent 
upon the transformation of the inputs; this modified sum of surplus 
value is then set equal to the sum of branch profits.

I assume that the unit of account is the unit of labor time or that 
the monetary expression of labor time is one. Ajit claims this is an 
illicit assumption, though Sweezy grants it as no less plausible than 
setting at p3 at one.

I don't think you have made contact at all with why I have argued 
that Meek's fourth equation is not consonant with Marxian theory.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST