On 11/27/06, Walt Byars wrote:
In Capital 1 p. 196 (Penguin) Marx states "The possibility therefore
of a quantitative incongruity between price and magnitude of value, i.e. the possibility that the price may diverge from the magnitude of value, is inherent in the price-form itself. This is not a defect, but, on the contrary, it makes this form the adequate one for a mode of production whose laws can only assert themselves as blindly operating averages between constant irregularities." <
Let's put this in context. Here, Marx is dealing with a level of abstraction in which prices of production are equal to values (when measured in the same units). He is then talking about disequilibrium, where the market price does not equal the price of production (value). It's "inherent in the price-form itself" because commodity production -- which centers on the price-form -- is unplanned or anarchic on the macro/societal level.
By "blindly operating averages between constant irregularities" does
he mean that the divergence of price from value for a particular commodity at one period is offset by an opposite divergence in another (e.g. if price is x below value in period 1, it will be x above value in period 2) or does it mean that the divergence of price from value for a particular commodity is offset by the opposite divergence of price from value for other commodities (redistribution of surplus value)? < The way I read it, there are (a) equilibrating forces that drive prices toward prices of production (values) and also (b) disequilibrating forces (what we'd now call curve shifts) that drive them away from prices of production. The orthodox economists, BTW, see only (a) as normal and natural, while Marx saw both (a) and (b) as part of the normal workings of a commodity-producing society, including capitalism. Is there redistribution of surplus-value? no, since in that part of CAPITAL, surplus-value does not exist. However, there would be redistribution of value. If A sells a commodity to B for a price above its value, then A is gaining value from B. This idea can also be applied when surplus-value exists. A gets above-average surplus-value, while B is selling at a price that leads to below-average surplus-value being realized. FWIW, I like the translation of the last sentence in the International Publishers' edition better (though I can't read or speak German). It reads: "This is no defect, but, on the contrary, admirably adapts the price-form to a mode of production whose inherent laws impose themselves only as a mean of apparently lawless irregularities that compensate [for] one another." To me, this says that on average market price tends to equal the price of production (value). (This assumes, however, that the various disequilibrating events tend to cancel each other out.)
It seems as the latter is what he is saying, as this seems to be what
he refers to when mentioning the divergence of price from value in volume 1. However, in a letter to Kugelmann he says "The vulgar economist has not the slightest idea that the actual, everyday exchange relations and the value magnitudes cannot be directly identical. The point of bourgeois society is precisely that, a priori, no conscious social regulation of production takes place. " Does his use of the term "Everyday" lend credence to the former explanation? < It seems to me that "everyday" simply refers to market prices and empirical market relations. They do not correspond to the underlying regulating force of prices of production (values). Instead, the constant variation of market prices helps them move toward prices of production.
Also, could anyone tell me of the secondary works discussing Marx's
views on price-value divergence that they know of. < I found John Harrison's _Marxist economics for socialists_ (Pluto Press) to be a good introduction. -- Jim Devine
