On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 17:11:42 Chris Burford wrote:
>Agonising over "the transformation problem" accepts the perspective of what
>Marx would call the vulgar economists. It assumes there is a problem, and
>bogs undialectical marxists into mechanically trying to equate value with
>prices without accepting the equilibration of the overall dynamical process.
Yes and no. Yes, there is no transformation problem if you understand the original transformation of values into prices through the mediation of money in Vol. 1, money always represents an amount of value which is not necesarily the same as the value of the commodities being bought. Once you understand this, the problem of transforming value of inputs into prices no longer exist. Only if you understand this point then you have no problem, no dualistic interpretation of Marx's notion of value. But since most of the discussion of the transformation problem do not recognize this, we do have a problem, and a very important one, a misinterpretation of Marx by the people that nobody expects to misinterpret Marx, the marxist tradition!! So agonizing over the 'transformation problem' is not to succumb to the evil power of vulgar economists, but it is a crucial aspect of the further develoment of Marx's ideas, it is to recognize and challenge the mistaken and unfortunately blindly accepted interpretation of Marx by "marxist" economists. Morishima is the best example, his solution is one of the generally accepted solutions by the left, in which he outlines a dual system of values and prices and the dilemma then becomes to make the appropriate connection between these two systems, something completely foreign to the notion of value found in Capital. This project of "the transformation problem" has occupied and fooled well meaning "marxist" intellectuals for over 80 years and still today, the solution to the problem remains a highly debated issue between temporalists, atemporalists, new-solution and sequentialists guys, every single one of them with the implications of a different theory of value as a result. It gives me the impression that if anybody dismiss this debate is because they don't understand what is going on or what is at stake for the development of Marx's ideas. If you do understand and believe that all this is a waste of time, tell me which one of all the interpretations available you consider to be the most appropriate one and from your own point of view as a marxist, why?
In the last
>ten years non-equilibrium modelling of economics have given renewed
>confidence to marxist economists who dismiss the plodding criticisms of
>Marx's overall theory.
>
What are some of these works you referring to?
Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com