# [OPE-L:5340] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: double divergence

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Mon Apr 09 2001 - 01:31:02 EDT

Dear Fred,

Since I have anticipated your response, there are two points I want
to make here.

1. Whether Marx wrote the formula k+ s for the *determination of
value* is irrelevant.

My point is that there is a way to make Marx coherent.

Once we realize if the general formula for the determination of the
value of any and all commodities is Lmp + Lc (while total value or
the value of the synechdocal average commodity only can be expressed
as or resolved into  k + s), then it is possible to offer an
interpretation in which there is no contradiction between double
divergence and marx's comments on the average commodity.

Note that you do not deny that I can do this by using my formulas for
the determination and resolution of value.

Since my interpretation saves Marx's two conclusions from logical
incoherence, why not go with it?

2. I can also argue that Marx used the k + s formula for the
determination of value  before he pointed out the mistake he had been
making.

That is as long as we are work under the assumption that the price of
the means of production is proportional to their value, then it is
indeed true that
one can express the formula for the determination of value as k + s
for any and all commodities.

But once Marx points out--as you have emphasized--that we were wrong
if we thought that the value of the means of production could have
been proportional to their price, then and only then is it evident
that general formula for the value determination cannot  be k + s
(though the value of total capital or the average commodity can be
expressed this way).

Now we see that there is a second reason for divergence between the
value and the price of a commodity.

Now my interpretation makes sense of why Marx could have used the
formula k + s for the determination of the value of any and all
commodities at some point in his logical presentation (as you and
Alejandro show).

My interpretation ALSO makes sense of why Marx could then later point
to double divergence.

So now I save all of Marx's text. It's just a superior interpretation
of Marx's text. You have already conceded that with your
interpretation you have to give up double divergence, though Marx
points to it twice.

>
>Rakesh, your statement quoted at the top surprised me in another way.  I
>thought you have argued before that, even for the total commodity product,
>K DOES CHANGE (i.e. that C and V change) in the transformation of value
>into price of production.

Fred, remember the post CONCEDING DEFEAT TO FRED. No you and
Alejandro are correct: the cost prices are a given precondition.

They do not change. what Marx does not change--that is, the error in
his transformation tables--is the assumption that the value
transferred from the means of production could be inferred from their
flow price.

You can still have an inverse transformation problem with the cost
prices as a given precondition.

>  Since you also argue that the price of
>production of the total commodity product is equal to its value, you
>concluded that the TOTAL SURPLUS-VALUE WILL ALSO CHANGE, inversely to the
>change of K, right?

I make these arguments only to respond to the Bortkiewicz/Sweezy
scheme on its own grounds.

Yours, Rakesh

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