Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Thu Feb 22 2007 - 06:43:51 EST

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

>> In my opinion, values and market prices determine each other mutually.
> Hi Diego:
> I would put it somewhat differently. (surprise.)  I would say that
> use-value,
> value and exchange-value (and the necessary form of appearance of
> the value-form, price) are all mutually constitutive of the commodity.
> In that formulation,  value does not  "determine" market prices or
> vice versa: both are necessary aspects of commodities. The point
> that I made to Phil is that (even if there is no representation of value
> other than through price) this is not (by itself) a theory of  value
> *determination*.
Of course, the relationship between what I called (in response to Ian) "A values" and "B prices" does not determine anything. As Marx points, "Price is the money-name of the labour realised in a commodity. " But in passing from one category to another inside the column of B prices (i.e. between w, p and m), I think that m is needed in the quantitative determination of w and p, and labour is needed in the quantitative determination of w, p and m. This is just what I meant.

>> As a general theory it should be assumed that m = m, different from both w
>> and p.
> By itself, that's not a general theory: it's an axiom and an identity.
I agree. When I write m = m(A+B+KR)--or m = m(A+B)(I+R) in the case of just circulating capital--, where K is the stock of total capital and R the diagonal matrix of sectoral rates of profit, I am just giving a definition of market prices.
>> I show in the paper that if we assume this, it is possible to keep all
>> Marx's equalities: total prices = total values, total profits = total
>> surplus value, one single rate of profit and so on.
> Total values = total prices?
> Shouldn't it be, in Marx's theory, total values = total PoP.
> This is a necessary qualification because there are objects which
> constitute wealth and come to be valued and have a price which
> do not constitute value. (See my reply to Paul C).

I mean total values or direct prices = total produuction prices = total market prices. Of course, ground-rent, taxes, etc., amount to a new deviation from p to m, but the sum of these deviations has to be 0 because of all those elements are not but deductions from surplus value (= profit).

> In solidarity, Jerry

Best regards,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST