[OPE-L:2448] Re: response to Andrew, Part II

Allin Cottrell (cottrell@wfu.edu)
Mon, 3 Jun 1996 06:47:32 -0700

[ show plain text ]


quotes Fred [2426]:
> "The 'correct' solution is one in which the transformation is complete
> in the sense that no further transformation takes place in subsequent
> periods."

and replies:
> Marx's transformation discussion in Ch. 9 assumes a period of one year, and
> let's assume that as well. Now, what happens the next year? Is surplus-
> value produced, and if so, is it possible that it isn't produced in
> proprtion to the capital advanced across the various branches? And if
> so, doesn't a "further transformation take place" this next year? If
> not, why not?

In context, IMO Andrew's question makes good sense if something relevant
has changed (e.g. technology) from one of these "years" to the next.
But I take Fred's point to be that, in the sort of simple example that
Andrew starts out from, nothing relevant has changed, in which case the
need for a "further transformation" just shows that the transformation
was not complete in the first "year".