Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
> The central idea in the transformation problem literature from Bortciewicz
> onwards is, I think, that there is an "accounting relationship" such that,
> by definition, total production prices equal total values, and total surplus
> value equals total profit volume.
In these equations, both prices and values should be measured net of
raw materials, to avoid double-counting. Also both sides of the
equations should be measured in the same units (either money or
labor-time).
> These identities are supposed to hold by definition. They are, if you like,
> a "consolidation principle", a foundational logical theorem. ...
I call them "conservation principles." In Marx, total price (the sum
of {price * quantity for each good or service}) should equal total
value (sum of {value * quantity for each good or service} for all
newly-produced commodities) because value cannot be created in
exchange (but is instead created by labor). Similarly, the sum of all
property income should equal the sum of all surplus-value, since
surplus-value has to be created by surplus labor. (Whether the logic
behind these conservation principles is correct or not is another
question, for another day.)
Given these conservation principles, price/value differences
"redistribute" income rather than producing it: the amount of value
created in any particular production process may be less or greater
than the amount of value that sale of the commodity can command or
claim on the market (unequal exchange).
(Value = socially necessary abstract labor-time = contribution to
society's total value production, while price = a claim on society's
value production, the ability to command the labor of others.)
> Once you have those identities, then you can perform all kinds of
> mathematical operations and investigate equilibrium conditions. That is what
> Bortciewicz liked to do.
I thought that Bortkiewicz emphasized inter-sectoral balance
conditions. For simple reproduction, for example, in the simplest
possible (two sector, all flow variables) case, v1 + s1 = c2. This is
a completely different concept that total value = total price or total
surplus-value = total property income.
> ... What makes the transformation problem a "problem" is that purely logical
> inconsistencies arise in the model of the production system, which cannot be
> solved. That is, it always turns out that, at some point, the "system of
> prices" cannot be reconciled with the "system of values". We are then forced
> to make additional assumptions, but the additional assumptions give rise to
> new inconsistencies, it never stops.
The so-called "New" solution of the TP (Foley, Duménil, Lévy) promises
a simple answer.
> ... If that is true, then the whole value theory is redundant, because it
> simply
> fails to achieve its explanatory or predictive objective from a scientific
> point of view.
I don't think that that was Marx's goal when he used values. Looking
at values says something about society -- who works and who benefits
from that labor -- that gets beyond the unconscious dance of
commodities. Value theory breaks though the illusions created by the
commodity form (i.e., commodity fetishism). Assuming that value =
price (in the first two volumes of CAPITAL) was part of the "force" of
abstraction that Marx saw as needed for scientific research.
("The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money-form, is
very elementary and simple. Nevertheless, the human mind has for more
than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it all, whilst
on the other hand, to the successful analysis of much more composite
and complex forms, there has been at least an approximation. Why?
Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of study than are
the cells of that body. In the analysis of economic forms, moreover,
neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of
abstraction must replace both. But in bourgeois society, the
commodity-form of the product of labor — or value-form of the
commodity — is the economic cell-form. To the superficial observer,
the analysis of these forms seems to turn upon minutiae. It does in
fact deal with minutiae, but they are of the same order as those dealt
with in microscopic anatomy." -- vol. I of CAPITAL, preface to first
German edition.)
> ... [Jurriaan's quote by Marx] suggests that the price of production is the
> "changed form" of the
> value of commodities, such that "value" is transformed into "price". But
> this is not really what is meant, since the commodity has a value and a
> price at the same time.
Right: each (newly-produced) commodity has both a value and a price,
parts of two different accounting systems.
A better way to think of it is that values represent the abstract
social essence (i.e., shared characteristics) of commodities, whereas
prices represent their concrete, specific, phenomenal appearance. The
value of a commodity is determined by society as a whole (i.e, what's
"socially necessary") while its price is determined by individual
markets. In the imaginary world of "simple commodity production,"
price and value are equal. They are not so under capitalism:
contributions of labor-time to the social division of labor differ
systematically from claims on that labor-time (commanding it to
produce).
(To Marx, “socially-necessary labor-time” is that which is “required
to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and
with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.”
We're talking about _social standards_ here, not about specific or
concrete units of labor-time.)
We go from essence toward appearance (from the whole to the parts) as
we move from the abstract capitalism of volume I (which is all about
Abstract Capital exploiting Abstract Labor) to the less-abstract
capitalism of volume III (in which the competition among concrete
capitalists is introduced). (In CAPITAL volume III, labor is still
abstract.)
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
