[OPE-L:5409] Re: Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Tue Apr 24 2001 - 11:37:29 EDT

>On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari quoted me:
>>  >Yes.  Vol. II, Ch XVI, section 1 (Moscow ed., p. 308):
>>  >
>>  >"It follows ... from what has been set forth above that the annual
>>  >rate of surplus-value coincides only in one single case with the real
>>  >rate of surplus-value which expresses the degree of exploitation of
>>  >labour; namely in the case where the advanced capital is turned over
>>  >only once a year..."
>>  >
>>  >There are numerous other places where the same distinction is made or
>>  >implied, and Marx consisently uses the term "real rate of surplus
>>  >value" for the ordinary s/v.
>And wrote:
>>    ... I read the passage which you quote to be underlining that
>>  real rate of exploitation expresses the degree of exploitation
>>  only when the advanced capital is turned over once a year.
>That is, you choose to "read" the opposite of what Marx actually says.
>Sheesh. In the example that Marx constructs, where one capital has an
>"annual rate of surplus value" of 100% and the other one 1000%, due to
>differing turnovers, yet they both have s/v = 100%, Marx clearly
>states that the "degree of exploitation" is the same in the two cases.

If the degree of exploitation is the same, then Marx must be 
attributing the difference in profitability to time. Can time do such 
work? You haven't answered my question.

  Why did Marx use the same phrase rate of surplus value for the 
volume 2 annual determinant and the volume one "real" rate if he did 
not mean to suggest one was more a complex, developed measure than 
the other of the same relation? After all, he could have referred to 
the annual rate of surplus value as the return on variable capital 
advanced and thus distanced the two determinants from each other. But 
by using the same phrase for both determinants, he seems to me to be 
saying that the annual rate is only the more developed form of the 
real or simple rate as turnover time is considered. The point is that 
the real or simple rate of surplus value is not completely correct, 
as Engels underlines.

And if Marx did have *time* itself increase and decrease 
profitability--can you find a passage in which Marx thingifies time 
as such an "independent variable"--would such a claim be consistent 
with his theory or the reality of the situation? What  about the 
latter passage in which Marx seems to describe workers as dominated 
by their product as production time is lessened--does this not seem 
to describe a situtation of heightened exploitation?


ps I have yet to consult Geoffrey Kay's Economic theory of the 
working class in which (if memory serves me) the difference between 
the annual and real rate of surplus value is analyzed. If anyone 
knows of other places where this difference is discussed in some 
detail in the secondary literature, please let me know. Thanks.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT