[ show plain text ]
I *mostly* agree with Paul C's comments in #2990.
But I'd emphasise that what's important, in the context which my original
message was responding to, is his point that the stock of capital is
"embodied in material objects" -- clearly something that's embodied in
something else is in some way different from that something, and confusing
the two will lead to problems.
>From the way that I've selected Paul's word for quotation, it will be
apparent that what I'm doubtful about is the "necessity" of capital being
embodied in material objects -- suppose I sell 100 shares in Microsoft, wait
two days while the price falls, then buy 100 Microsoft shares and invest the
difference in Amaxon.com: what's my capital embodied in during the interval?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: clyder [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 10:39 AM
> To: ope-l
> Subject: [OPE-L:2990] Re: Defining accumulation
> Julian wrote
> > 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
> > 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
> 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