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

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

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).