[OPE-L:5383] Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value (stock and flow)

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Sun Apr 22 2001 - 20:58:00 EDT


>In the numeric example in OPE-L:5373,
>                 c    v  sv  s/v    r
>     Year 1     100  50 50  100%  33%
>     Year 2     100  25 50  200%  40%
>v and s must be flows over the year, since these columns are used
>to calculate the s/v column. But the v column must also be a
>stock, since it and the c column, also a stock, are used to
>calculate the rate of profit, r = s / (c + v). Using uppercase
>letters to distinguish capital stock advanced from flows of
>capital over the year, the equation is r = s / (C + V).
>Incidentally, turnover time can change because of changes in
>production time but also because of a change in the time capital
>must spend in circulation, such as the length of time that output
>sits on the shelf before someone buys it.

Yet due to a reduction in production time, the capitalists find that 
they can use the product of labor after the first production cycle to 
extort surplus value from the workers at no additional cost in 
variable capital to themselves. Their variable capital costs have 
been reduced in half. This is a clear example of how workers are 
dominated by their own product. It is their own increased 
productivity that is enjoyed exclusively by the capitalist class in 
terms of a reduction in the variable capital which they must advance 
to appropriate a given sum of surplus value.

That is, the 25 units of surplus value which the bourgeoisie 
appropriates in the second production cycle has effectively cost them 
nothing. You tell me that this cannot be a rise in the rate of 
surplus value because the rate of s in relation to lower case v does 
not change (note you didn't answer my query of  what you would 
attribute the rise in profitability to if not a rise in the rate of 
exploitation; I would like to show my answer is better than any 
alternative). But this seems to me to mischaracterize the situation 
as the workers have obviously not gained at all from an improvement 
in their own productivity--in your terms the flow of variable capital 
remains the same though  labor now produces twice as much.

  How can this not be a rise in the rate of exploitation as well as a 
diminishment of the workers' relative position to the owning class? 
And since it obviously is just that (so unlike Webber and Rigby, I am 
saying that a reduction in production time is itself, c.p, a rise in 
the rate of exploitation, not just like it in terms of its effects) , 
aren't you then wrong to insist that exploitation be measured as you 
insist it must be measured?

Yours, Rakesh

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