[ show plain text ]
At 08:43 04/05/00 +0000, you wrote:
>You are a little me trying to use me against myself, but what I wrote is
>that Marx's concept is ambiguous and I am strugging against the ambiguity.
>Toward the end of section one I begin a struggle against a definition of
>accumulation of capital being growth of either constant capital, c, by
>itself, or c +v.
If accumulation is growth in c + v it is then since these are flows,
the dimension is number of persons, accumulation is then identical
with growth of the employed population of productive workers.
In these terms, accumulation has not occured in the UK since
the late 1950's.
If accumulation is growth of capital stock, accumulation has
fluctuated between being positive and negative over the
Disadvantage of first defn is that it generally treats developed
capitalism as being non-accumulating.
> >In determining whether capital accumulation is taking place one is
> >concerned with stock calculations. Accumulation is a rate of change of
> >stock. The only form of capital stock is what Marx calls constant
> >capital. Variable capital does
> >not exists as a stock, it is a flow measure. The corresponding stock
> >measure is,
> >as Smith and Ricardo pointed out, the stock of subsistence goods held by
> >retailers etc against which wages are exchanged.
>You are offering an alternative definition: "accumulation of capital is
>growth of constant capital, c"? If so, what is the difference between
>yourself and neoclassical economics on accumulation, other than the unit
law of falling rate of profit is difference
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EDT