**Next message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4416] Re: what is Volume 1 about?"**Previous message:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4414] what is Volume 1 about?"**In reply to:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4414] what is Volume 1 about?"**Next in thread:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4416] Re: what is Volume 1 about?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

re 4414 >I would like to raise again the issue of what Volume 1 is about - whether >labor-values only or money-quantities determined by labor-values Fred, this is similar to my debate with Allin. My point is that in vol 3, Marx defines surplus value as total value minus cost prices. So if the cost prices are to be modified, then the sum of surplus value will change as well. Allin's textually unsupported interpretation is that Marx defines surplus value as total value minus the value of the inputs, so if the inputs are transformed into prices of production and cost prices thereby modified, the sum of surplus value should remain invariant. This simple definitional difference leads to two sets of input transformation equations. Mine however can be solved; Allin's can't; hence, his belief in the transformation problem. It comes down to the definition of surplus value; so far all textual evidence is on my side and none on Allin's To see this, begin again with Allin's updating of Bortkiewicz and Sweezy: _______________________ The initial value table: c v s value I 225.00 90.00 60.00 375.00 II 100.00 120.00 80.00 300.00 III 50.00 90.00 60.00 200.00 Tot. 375.00 300.00 200.00 875.00 Marx's first-step transformation takes the given total s and distributes it in proportion to (c+v). Thus: c v profit price pvratio I 225.00 90.00 93.33 408.33 1.0889 II 100.00 120.00 65.19 285.19 0.9506 III 50.00 90.00 41.48 181.48 0.9074 Tot. 375.00 300.00 200.00 875.00 1.0000 _________________ I propose these input transformation equations in which total value/price is invariant from the original tableau (equation 5) and the sum of surplus value equals (determines) the sum of profits (equation 4). (1) 225x+90y+r(225x+90y)=225x+100x+50x (2) 100x+120y+r(100x+120y)=90y+120y+90y (3) 50x+90y+r(50x+90y)=r(225x+90y)+r(100x+120y)+r(50x+90y) (4) 875-(225x+100x+50x+90y+120y+90y)=r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) (5) 875=375x+300y+r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) Allin proposes that the transformation should keep the mass of surplus value invariant even as cost prices are modified : (6) 225x+90y+r(225x+90y)=225x+100x+50x (7) 100x+120y+r(100x+120y)=90y+120y+90y (8) 50x+90y+r(50x+90y)=800-375-300 (9) 875-375-300=r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) (10)875=375x+300y+r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) My set of equations has a determinate solution for x,y and r; Allin's doesn't--hence, his belief in the transformation problem. Though both the couplet 3&8 and 4&9 differ, both the divergences derive from this single definitional issue. My transformation system of equations assumes Marx's definition of surplus value as total value minus cost price; Allin defines surplus value once and for all as total value minus the value of the means of production and wage goods themselves (a definition which Marx never ONCE uses). I transform the inputs while maintaining both equalities: total value=total price (equation 5) and mass of surplus value=sum of profits (equation 4). Allin's equations says this is impossible (save of course in freak cases). The putative fatal logical defect comes from insisting on a non existent definition of surplus value and condemning an entire theory as fatally logically flawed due to a refusal to use its own definitions. All the best, Rakesh

**Next message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4416] Re: what is Volume 1 about?"**Previous message:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4414] what is Volume 1 about?"**In reply to:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4414] what is Volume 1 about?"**Next in thread:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4416] Re: what is Volume 1 about?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST
*