[OPE-L:5377] Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value (stock and flow)

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Sun Apr 22 2001 - 01:08:58 EDT

re 5376

>Rakesh wrote:
>If the variable capital goes from turning over once a year to
>twice a year, then the rate of surplus value (s/v) has to be
>It is the stock of variable capital that turns over. While the
>annual flow of variable capital remains the same, the stock of
>variable capital might shrink from four weeks' outlay of wages to
>two weeks, for example because sales revenue comes in faster. A
>change in the stock V is not a change in the flow v, and it is
>the latter in ratio to s that defines the rate of surplus value.

Charlie, then are you not saying that the rate of profit can rise 
from a decrease in production time even though the the rate of 
surplus value remains the same. So then how would you account for the 
rise in the rate of profit from 33 to 40% in the example which I 
gave? I am interested in your answer.

The spike can't be due to a reduction in the composition of capital 
because we are assuming that remains constant; it can't be due to a 
decrease in the real wage since we are assuming that is constant as 
well. It can't result from an increase in working hours since we are 
holding that constant too.

So while I feel the force of your objection, I am yet unpersuaded 
since I am at a loss how to explain increased profitability from a 
reduction in production time save as an increase of surplus value in 
relation to the variable capital that was advanced (though I am not 
clear why you are calling the variable capital advanced the stock of 
variable capital?)

You then object that this is strictly speaking not a rise in the rate 
of surplus value which should be measured in terms of s in relation 
to the flow of v, not the v that was advanced.  But why you say this 
is not clear to me. If as a result of the halving of production time 
workers can produce twice the quantity in one year, while the flow of 
variable capital remains the same, then it seems obvious to me that 
the rate of exploitation has indeed increased. It seems to me not to 
matter that this rise in s/v has been effected by reduction in the v 
that has to be advanced,  rather than a rise in s in relation to v in 
flow terms (as you have put it). Either way, the workers have 
suffered a rise in the rate of exploitation from a reduction in 
production time.

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT