Alan Freeman says: I tend to think his [Marx's]actual view on this was governed by empirical fact. On p860 (CIII L/W) he writes "The market-prices rise above and fall below these regulating prices of production, but these fluctuations mutually balance each other. If one examines price lists over a more or less long period of time, and if one disregards those cases in which the actual value of commodities is altered by the productivity of labour, and likewise those cases in which the process of production has been disturbed by natural or social accidents, one will be surprised, in the first place, by the relatively narrow limits of the deviations, and secondly by the regularity of their mutual compensation' _______________________ I think this is the crux of the matter and the center of our differences--a serious one, I might add. As fas as Marx's quotations describing the dynamics of capitalism is concerned, I would say "every child knows". So our basic difference comes down to this: Is the *ideal average* or the point of gravitation a *statistical average* or a theoretical point. You explicitly say it is the former. I say it is the latter. Now, if you maintain that the *ideal average* is the statistical average, then of course it has no serious theoretical relevance. Market prices is all you have and the theory of value reduces to "demand-supply" theory. You are safe and secure in your neo-classical home--disequilibrium rhetoric notwithstanding. If you look around to find support for your idea, you will find yourself in company with Stigler and Sam Hollander--a good company but a neo-classical company nevertheless. In the above quotation Marx is arguing my point, but you present it as if he is making your point. Nowhere he says that the "these *regulating prices of production*" is gotten by finding the statistical average of prices over time. As a matter of fact, how would you *abstract* from real prices, which is what you are asked to do, if you were going to find the "regulating price" by averaging the *real prices*? His basic point is that if one abstract from disequilibrium tendecies, then one can find out a "regulating price", which is not gotten from the real prices, around which the real prices would fluctuate. There are many quotations you have presented which, in my opinion, is making my point rather than yours, but there is no point in going into those in detail. To settle the whole problem of value, I think, one needs to ask: what is value, and what is its function in Marx's theoretical structure? The *Law of Chaos* crowd seems to be obsessed with "actual prices"--appearances, appearances, appearances-- what Marx called the obsession of vulgar economics. Cheers, ajit sinha
