[OPE-L:4328] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part Two of Volume III of Capital

From: Paul Cockshott (paul@cockshott.com)
Date: Fri Oct 27 2000 - 11:01:32 EDT

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> >On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> > Paul
> >The point is that something must happen to cool the
> >system down and narrow the dispersion of profit rates
> >if you are going to have a single average profit rate.
> >The question at issue is not whether the rate is the same
> >in two time periods, but how you can achieve such
> >a low entropy in the first place. I would have thought
> >that it is only concievable over a long time period in
> >the absence of changes in technology or external
> >perturbations.
> Rakesh
> At a low level of capitalist development, technology would be 
> relatively stable, but even with this 'absence of changes', the 
> system would not move  towards an equalisation of profit rates. 
> "Entropy" in terms of the random distribution of profit rates would 
> easily obtain in a relatively stable system: there would neither be 
> the capital mobility nor labor mobility to achieve the order of 
> equalisation of the same average profit rate.

This seems the obverse of what Farjoun and Machover argue. 

They argue that it is technical change which is constantly 
disrupting the profit rate. 

I dont see why capital mobility should be low if technical change
is slow. In the absence of technical change investors can
have  pretty accurate idea of which branches of production
are the most profitable and can transfer funds into these. This
is what is supposed to equalise the rate of profit.

If you dont know what production conditions will be like next
year, movement of capital will be much more driven by guesses
than accurate foresight and will be less effective in equalising
rates of profit.

Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
0141 330 3125  mobile:07946 476966

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST