[OPE-L:5396] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value

From: Allin Cottrell (cottrell@wfu.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 23 2001 - 14:00:41 EDT

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:

> Again Marx does not counterpose the annual rate of surplus value
> to the rate of exploitation. We have S/V vs. S/v.  The question
> becomes what is a better measure of exploitation of the working
> class by the owning class once we consider turnover time.

The only meaningful measure of exploitation, per se, is the division
of the working day into its necessary and surplus components: what
proportion of their time do the workers work for themselves, and what
proportion for the capitalists?  Anything else is "playing with
numbers".  Financial ratios that may be calculated by capitalists (or
by Engels on their behalf) are another matter; while they may have
their uses they are not a measure of exploitation.

Rakesh says:

> I argued implicitly in 5380 that since a reduction in production
> time, cet par., is best understood as an increase in the
> exploitation of the working class...

And of my example, with $1000 laid out either monthly or weekly, he

> This is not a good example of a reduction in production time. It
> takes 1000 working days in both cases to produce the same amount
> [of physical output]...

It had better take the same working time to produce the same physical
output, or else we are conflating (a) an increase in relative surplus
value of the ordinary Vol. I sort, which certainly corresponds to
increased exploitation, with (b) an effect that is strictly due to a
change in "turnover time" (i.e. something that was not dealt with in
Vol. I).

Allin Cottrell.

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