[lbo-talk] on the transformation problem

[James Heartfield]

You can go too far in separating the 'phenomenal' prices from the essential values. Value is real , even if we don't see it directly. Why would that be a surprise? You don't see sub-atomic particles directly, but infer them from evidence. Marx's logical reconstruction of the theory of prices, wages and profits turns around a relation much more real than the epiphenomenal fluctuations in prices, namely the substantial relations of exploiter and exploited, surplus value, which, while never being literally coincident with surface appearances, is nonetheless the determinant of all such.

The disappointment with those who seek to identify appearance (empirical prices) with essence (value relations) is right - they are seeking to close the transformation from empirical evidence to theoretical appropriation of the same.