**Next message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5338] Re: Re: Re: double divergence"**Previous message:**glevy@pratt.edu: "[OPE-L:5336] Congres / Marx International III / Congress (fwd)"**In reply to:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5315] Re: Re: Re: double divergence"**Next in thread:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5338] Re: Re: Re: double divergence"**Reply:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5338] Re: Re: Re: double divergence"**Reply:**Paul: "[OPE-L:5350] Re: Re: Re: double divergence"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This is a partial reply to Rakesh's several recent posts. As I understand it, Rakesh argues that, even though the cost price is the same in Marx's equations for value and price of production on p. 309, the equation for value (W = K + S) is not Marx's equation for the determination of value. Therefore, I (Fred) am wrong to infer that the cost price is the same in the determination of both value and price of production. Rakesh, do I understand you correctly? If so, then I agree in part with Rakesh that the equation for value on p. 309 is not Marx's fundamental equation for the determination of value. However, the equation for value on p. 309 can easily be derived from Marx's fundamental equation for the determination of value (as I will show below). Therefore, if the cost price is the same in Marx's equations on p. 309 (which it obviously is), then the cost price must be the same in Marx's determination of value and price of production. The derivation is as follows: As I have explained in previous rounds of this discussion, according to my interpretation, value and surplus-value are determined by the fundamental equations: (1) W = C + N = C + mL (2) S = N - V = m (L - Ln) where W is value, C is constant capital, V is variable capital, N is new-value, L is total current labor, m is money-value-added per hour, Ln is necessary (= V/m), and S is surplus-value. Since N = V + S, equation (1) can be expanded, as Marx did many times, to: (3) W = C + V + S Further, since K = C + V, equation (3) can be written as: (4) W = K + S Equation (4) is one way of expressing the determination of value, after the theory of surplus-value expressed in equations (1) and (2) has already been presented. Equation (4) for value may then be contrasted with the equation for the determination of prices of production: (5) P = K + R where R is the average profit. Equations (4) and (5) are Marx's equations on p. 309 (with slightly different notation). It is obvious that K is the same for both of these equations. Furthermore, we can see from the above derivation that the K in equation (4) is equal to (C + V) in equations (1) and (2) (Marx's fundamental equations for the determination of value and surplus-value). Therefore, it follows that (C + V) in equations (1) and (2) must be equal to (or must be the same as) K in equation (5). In other words, the fact that K is the same in Marx's equations on p. 309 implies that (C + V) must be the same for the determination of both value and price of production. It is also clear from the above equations that, if the cost price is the same in the determination of both of value and price of production, then there can be ONLY ONE REASON for the divergence between value and price of production - profit not equal to surplus-value - which contradicts the "double divergence" sentence at the beginning of Section 2. Therefore, as I explained in my previous post, we must choose between the following options: (1) either the "double divergence" sentence is misspoken or (2) the entire rest of the section is nonsense. Rakesh, thanks again for the discussion. Comradely, Fred

**Next message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5338] Re: Re: Re: double divergence"**Previous message:**glevy@pratt.edu: "[OPE-L:5336] Congres / Marx International III / Congress (fwd)"**In reply to:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5315] Re: Re: Re: double divergence"**Next in thread:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5338] Re: Re: Re: double divergence"**Reply:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5338] Re: Re: Re: double divergence"**Reply:**Paul: "[OPE-L:5350] Re: Re: Re: double divergence"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT
*