OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: (OPE-L) Re: Systematic Dialectics and the Presentation of Historical Detail in Volume I of _Capital_

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it. 

The problem comes in trying to give an unabiguous measure of
technical composition, since it involves a relationship between
incomensurable quantities.

Andrew Brown wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On 25 Mar 2004 at 22:04, Paul Cockshott wrote:
>
> > Andrew Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > The theory has the same core as it always did, viz. LTV, emphasis on
> > > levels of abstraction, importance of VCC/OCC/TCC distinctions,
> > > emphasis on need to incorporate concrete, empirical, historical and
> > > contingent material.
> >
> > Why do you consider VCC/OCC/TCC distinctions important.
> >
> > It has always struck me that only there is only one well defined
> > concept there, the rest is handwaving.
>
> they are pivotal for grasping the LTRPF and the transformation
> problem (both of which turn on difference or changes in 'the' 'CC').
> see Fine and saadi Filho's 'Marx's Capital', 4th ed, for example.
> interesting to note that the distinction only really comes into its own
> when thinking about disequilibrium.
>
> andy
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]