[OPE-L:4799] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Sun Jan 28 2001 - 15:14:35 EST

Fred writes in 4798:

>Rakesh, let me try to make sure I understand what you have been
>saying.  Maybe there is more agreement than I have appreciated.  I have
>been thinking some more about your "retracting criticisms of Fred" and
>"conceding defeat". 
>You seem to agree with me that, in Marx's theory of prices of production,
>the inputs of constant capital and variable capital are already in money
>terms and are equal to the price of production of the MP and MS.  In other
>words, you agree with me that Marx himself, in his theory of prices of
>production, DID NOT FAIL to transform the inputs of constant capital and
>variable capital from values to prices of production (as alleged by the
>standard criticism of Marx's theory), right?


>If so, then this is a very significant agreement.

I think so too.

>However, where we disagree is that you argue that Marx made THE OPPOSITE
>MISTAKE than in the standard critique.  Rather than failing to transform
>the inputs from values to prices of production in the determination of the
>prices of production of outputs, Marx failed to make the OPPOSITE
>TRANSFORMATION (i.e. an "inverse transformation"); that is, he failed to
>transform the prices of production of inputs BACKWARD from prices of
>production to values in the determination of the values of outputs. 
>Rakesh, do I understand you correctly?

So much so that you have articulated my point better than I have. I 
have also accepted your earlier description of my interpretation as 
an inverse transformation problem.

>Thanks very much in advance for you clarification.  I look forward to
>further discussion and perhaps even to greater agreement.
>P.S.  Based on my (4796) and your (4797), do you also agree that when Marx
>discussed the "value" of commodities in Capital (e.g. in Parts 1 and 2 of
>Volume 3 that we have been discussing) that he almost always means money
>or prices (i.e. the monetary expression of value)?  Do we agree that
>Marx's theory of value and surplus-value is about quantities of
>money-capital in circulation (M - C ... M'), not about quantities of
>labor-time which are only illustrated by money?

I think you are correct here as well.

>  Marx's theory of value
>and surplus-value may be about "simple" or "direct" prices (that is a
>separate issue), but at least it is about prices, right?  Thanks again.


Comradely, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST