[OPE-L:4312] Price-Value Equivalence!

From: Alejandro Ramos (aramos@btl.net)
Date: Thu Oct 26 2000 - 21:44:57 EDT


Re Paul, 4310:

Paul, Rakesh wrote: "It  is obvious that Marx knew perfectly well in vol 1
that commodities do not exchange at value." 

Your first quotation shows that this is true:

"We have in fact. assumed that prices = values. We shall, however, see, in
Book Ill., that even in the case of average prices the assumption cannot be
made in this very simple manner."

So, Marx did know in Vol. I that, as Rakesh says, commodities don't
exchange at value. Hence, I don't see your point.

Besides this, in your quotation from Ch 17 he allows for a deviation
between price and value in the case of labor power: "I assume ... (2) that
the price of labour-power rises occasionally above its value, but never
sinks below it."

I think the point here is if one want to make from these symplifing
assumptions the textual evidence for working out a self contained "value
model" from which presumably another self contained "price model" will be
later "derived"  la Bortkiewicz et al. Do you think this is what we should
do with these quotations?

Alejandro R.

-------------------
At 20:41 26/10/00, you wrote:
>Rakesh, Several months ago, replying to Andrew, I posted [3738] a number
>of quotations from Volume 1 showing that Marx knew exactly what he was
>assuming for his Volume 1 discussion, i.e, all industries operate at your
>average (the standard deviation of compositions of capital is zero)!
>
>    "The calculations given in the text are intended merely as
>illustrations. We have in fact. assumed that prices = values. We shall,
>however, see, in Book Ill., that even in the case of average prices the
>assumption cannot be made in this very simple manner." (Chapter 9, fn. at
>end of Section 1)
>
>    "our assumption, that all commodities, including labour-power, are
>bought and sold at their full value" (Chapter 12, third paragraph)
>
>    "I assume (1) that commodities are sold at their value; (2) that the
>price of labour-power rises occasionally above its value, but never sinks
>below it." (Chapter 17, second paragraph)
>
>    "On the one hand, then, we assume that the capitalist sells at their
>value the commodities he has produced, without concerning ourselves either
>about the new forms that capital assumes while in the sphere of
>circulation, or about the concrete conditions of reproduction hidden under
>these forms." (Part VII, The Accumulation of Capital, fourth paragraph)
>
>Paul Z.
>
>***********************************************************************
>Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
>******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
>
>
>Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU> said, on 10/25/00:
>
>>So if in vol 1, Marx equates the surplus value produced by a firm  with
>>the profit it appropriates, he obviously has in mind "an average 
>>industry" which Meek claims is similar to Sraffa's basic industry. It  is
>>obvious that Marx knew perfectly well in vol 1 that commodities do  not
>>exchange at value.
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST