[ show plain text ]
> If so, isn't the problem more their broad misreading of Marx -- i.e.
> they think of the surplus primarily as a pile of goods which in principle
> could either be directly consumed or not (in which case they think of it
> having been "accumulated"), not as *value*.
> In this case, I think all those one-commodity corn models have a lot
> to answer for....
I would hold that accumulation of capital can only take place when there
is a net increase in the value of the stock of capital held by the
class. This stock of capital is of necessity entirely embodied in material
objects - buildings, machines, stocks of finished but unsold products etc.
Such an accumulation of capital will, unless the average productivity of
labour is declining be associated with a growing 'pile of goods'. Given
rising labour productivity is the norm in modern society, I don't understand
your diatribe against physicalism and a growing stock of goods.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EDT