From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 20:08:25 EST
Re Andy's [7915]: > I'm not clear how you would *distinguish* between the VCC and the > OCC on your own interpretation. Hence, also, I'm not clear what > the dialectical unity would be uniting. > On my interpretation of the above cite of Marx, the OCC will *only* > change if the TCC changes. I would say, rather, that Marx asserts that *both* TCC and VCC must change for the OCC to change. Thus the OCC can only increase if: a) the TCC increases, and b) the VCC increases. > This has the relevant implication that > the OCC does not change due to changes in the *value* of the > components of the TCC. Well, the TCC by definition isn't a measure of value. The "relevant implication" is that when there has been a change in the VCC ***to the extent that the VCC 'mirrors' changes in the TCC*** then the OCC will change. The interesting question then becomes: what happens if there is a change in the VCC which is *not* 'mirrored' by and 'determined' by a change in the TCC? In that circumstance, there could be a change in the VCC but not a change in the OCC, couldn't there be? > <snip, JL> In other words, the > OCC is a category of production and abstracts away from changes > in values due to the exchange process (e.g. distribution of SV > according to profit rate equalistion), only taking into account > changes in the TCC. The VCC is a category of exchange and so > does not abstract from changes in value due to exchange. I disagree. The OCC is no more a category of production alone than is the VCC. > The OCC will only change if the TCC changes. Yes, and the OCC will only change if the VCC also changes. > Hence the VCC is more concrete than the OCC. I still don't 'get' it. Why the 'hence'? Because the VCC supposedly, by your reading, is a 'category of exchange' which somehow makes it more concrete? What do others on the list think? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 00:00:01 EST