[Marxism] 'What to do with the Labor Theory of Value'

Shane Mage shmage at pipeline.com
Sun May 12 11:53:22 MDT 2013


On May 12, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> Market prices is the most superficial layer in Marx's analysis and  
> it is
> only in approximation that it approaches price of production prices.

Not even then (the typical price is administered and results from  
monopolistic competition).
But the macroeconomic analysis, and consequently the whole Marxian  
"crisis theory," of vol. 3 abstracts from issues of imperfect  
competition and therefore works with the political economy's classical  
theory of price. Hence the perception of a "transformation problem."



>> On May 12, 2013, at 11:35 AM, Angelus Novus wrote:
>>
>>> From the perspective of the "monetary" reading, there is NO
>>> transformation problem, because there is no "transforming" values  
>>> into
>>> prices; values cannot be expressed without money.
>>>
>>
>> It ain't as easy as that.  The "tp" is that the sum of final-product
>> prices, multiplied by the labor-content of the monetary unit, has  
>> to equal
>> the sum of values, but the relative prices-of-production of the  
>> commodities
>> systematically do not correspond to their relative values.   
>> Recognition of
>> the fact that values cannot be expressed without money ("price is  
>> value in
>> the form of money") merely states the problem without solving it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shane Mage
>>
>> "All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things,
>> as goods are for gold and gold for goods."
>>
>> Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 90




More information about the Marxism mailing list