[OPE-L:5389] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Mon Apr 23 2001 - 02:24:25 EDT

re 5387

>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
>>  The upward effect on the profit rate which my simple example
>>  demonstrated is manifestly not derived from any reduction in the
>>  stock of products held in factories and warehouses. It obviously
>>  derives from a reduction in the variable capital which must be
>>  advanced to appropriate a given sum of surplus value. For some
>>  reason, this appears to you and Charlie not to be a rise in the rate
>>  of exploitation.
>Marx's rate of exploitation, s/v, maps onto the division of the
>aggregate working day into its surplus and necessary components.  s/v
>rises if the working day is lengthened, cet.par., or if the time of
>necessary labour is shortened, via an intensification of labour or an
>improvement in technology which permits the workers to produce their
>own subsistence in a shorter time.  Any other putative reason for an
>increase is s/v is flim-flam based on stock-flow confusion.
>Allin Cottrell.

Marx does not have one measure of exploitation. May I recommend that 
you, Paul C and Charlie  refer to what Marx called the ANNUAL RATE OF 
SURPLUS VALUE, though for you the concept can only be flim flam 
(whatever that means) since Marx's concept is based on s in relation 
to the v advanced (rather than the per annum flow of v). Based on 
Manchester experience, Engels realized that the annual rate of 
surplus value was important enough a conceptual discovery that he 
elaborated on it himself in volume 3 to make sure its overwhelming 
importance would not be neglected. Evidently his efforts were in vain.


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