[OPE-L:6296] Re: Re: Re: Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2002 - 13:36:33 EST

>I don't find cogent the interpretation of that passage as a restatment
>Tugan/Bortkiewicz view (i.e. there are two completely separated "systems",
>etc.) because, if Marx were thinking in that terms when he defines the
>value and price of production of average commodities (*just 20 lines or so
>after this passage* --Capital III, pp. 308-309, Penguin), he should have

Alejandro, I want to clarify that I reject such dualism as well, and 
for the rejection of such I am very indebted to you, Carchedi, Fred, 
Andrew and others.

what i am saying in defense of the an iterative solution which 
accepts the winternitz invariance condition (total simple price=total 
price of production) is that the equality between the mass of surplus 
value and the mass of profit can be maintained in each iteration 
including the last one without making surplus value as it is defined 
in the original simple price scheme invariant throughout the 
iteration. That is, the equality need not be an invariance condition.

*Surplus value for me is never defined in a pure value account that 
exists in parallel to a price account. The dual systems approach is 
not Marx's.*

The mass of surplus value is always the residual once cost prices (M) 
have been taken from the final prices (M') in the system as a whole. 
That is, surplus value is defined as M', less M, not C', less C. 
Since the complete transformation aims at transforming the inputs and 
thereby the cost prices, it must change in an inverse direction the 
mass of surplus value as the mass of surplus value *is* the 
difference between output prices and cost prices. Of course this mass 
will tend to have been distributed in such a way that the profit rate 
equalizes. The question then becomes whether it is possible to hold 
on to an exploitation theory if the mass of surplus value itself 
changes as a result of a complete transformation carried out in 
iterative steps. And I argue yes, sure, it is.
all the best, Rakesh

>value = value of c + value of v + surplus value,
>production price = price of c + price of v + profit.
>Here you would have your "double divergence": 1. "value of c + v" is not
>equal to "price of c + v" and 2. "surplus value" is not equal to "profit".
>Instead, Marx writes:
>value = k + surplus value,
>production price = k + profit,
>k = cost-*price*, a "transformed magnitude".
>Therefore, no trace of "double divergence" in a passage which is logically
>and textually the immediate continuation of that you mention. Is this
>inconsistency possible in a thinker such Marx? I don't believe this because
>I prefer to give some credit to the author. So, it seems interesting to me
>to explore another possible meaning of the "double divergence" text,
>instead of that one is inferred within the Tugan/Bortkiewicz tradition.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST