[OPE-L:5388] Re: Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 23 2001 - 00:23:16 EDT

Thanks very much to Jerry and Charlie and Paul C. for their recent posts
on this topic.  This is a response to Rakesh's (5373).

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:

> >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, you wrote:
> >>  Re Rakesh's [5367]:
> >> 
> >>
> >>  The question, though, is whether the magnitude
> >>  of surplus-value *in the aggregate* is altered by
> >>  turnover time.
> >
> >Assuming the size of the working population, the working
> >day and the real wage are being held constant, obviously not.
> >
> >A change in turnover time is just another way of saying that
> >there is change in the organic composition. It affects only
> >the rate of profit per person year of capital employed.
> Sure the magnitude of surplus value is not affected (as Jerry, Paul C 
> and Charlie seem to be all arguing), the rate of surplus value 
> however is. And the rate of surplus value is obviously a (if not the 
> main concern) concern of vol 1, so this suggests that the 
> determinants of s/v are not exhausatively treated in volume one, as 
> Fred *seems* to be suggesting to me. 

Rakesh, I thought it was clear that, in our recent discussion, I have been
talking mainly about the MAGNITUDE of surplus-value, not the rate of
surplus-value.  Our discussion has been about the magnitude of
surplus-value in Marx's equation value = K + S.  My persistent question
has been: is the magnitude of surplus-value in this equation the same as
or different from the surplus-value determined in Volume 1?

At first, you seemed to argue that the magnitude of surplus-value is not
determined in Volume 1, but is instead affected by turnover time analyzed
in Volume 2.  But now you seem to agree (with Jerry and Charley and Paul
C. and myself) that the magnitude of surplus-value is not affected by
turnover time and hence is determined in Volume 1.  (I notice that in your
numerical example, the reduction of turnover time does not affect the
magnitude of surplus-value, which remains at 50; please see below.)

So, I ask again:  what is the relation between the magnitude of
surplus-value that is determined in Volume 1 and the magnitude of
surplus-value in the equation value = K + S in Volume 3?  Are these two
magnitudes of surplus-value the same or different?  If different,
why?  And what is the textual evidence?

Rakesh (and others), thanks again for the discussion.  


>   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 doubled--even 
> assuming the size of the working population, the working day and the 
> real wage are being held constant. With turnover time doubled, the 
> capitalist would only need to have committed half the variable 
> capital over the course of a year. Grossmann is correct that a 
> reduction in turnover time is a countertendency to the falling rate 
> of profit.
>         c    v  sv  s/v    r
> I      100  50 50  100%  33%
> II     100  25 50  200%  40%
> Yours, Rakesh

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