On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > >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? Note that Marx doesn't attempt to make any calculations of profitability in Ch XVI of Vol II, where he addresses the "turnover of variable capital". He constructs an example with two parallel variable capitals: one turns over once a year and the other 10 times per year. He summarizes the situation thus: "In the case of both capitals A and B, we have invested a variable capital of £100 a week. The degree of self-expansion, or the rate of surplus-value, is likewise the same, 100%, and so is the magnitude of the variable capital, £100. The same quantity of labour-power is exploited, the volume and degree of exploitation are equal in both cases, the working-days are the same and equally divided into necessary labour and surplus-labour. The amount of variable capital employed in the course of the year is £5,000 in either case; it sets the same amount of labour in motion, and extracts the same amount of surplus-value, £5,000, from the labour-power set in motion by these two equal capitals. Nevertheless there is a difference of 900% in the annual rate of surplus-value of the two capitals A and B." That's it. He counterposes the "annual rate of surplus value", which differs dramatically between the capitals, against the "real rate of surplus value" or degree of exploitation, which is the same in the two cases. No calculations of profit rates. You can calculate profit rates if you add some information on constant capital. In that case the point Paul made kicks in: shortening the turnover of v means that you are producing saleable output in a shorter period of time, which means that you are carrying a smaller stock of work in progress and your organic composition of capital will be lower. If commodities are priced at their values and the ("real") rate of surplus value is uniform then of course capitals with lower organic composition will show a higher rate of profit. You objected to Paul's "work in progress" argument, but if you think about it, it's the only meaningful interpretation of the case. What are the workers employed by the slow-turnover capital supposed to be doing, while the workers for the high-turnover capital are periodically churning out saleable output? They must be "building something big", that is accumulating an inventory of work in progress. (Marx refers to the example of railways later in the chapter.) If capitals engaged in such enterprises are to earn the same rate of profit as capitals that turn over rapidly, their output will have to sell at a premium relative to its value (aka price of production). "Time", in the sense of your question, is the dual of organic composition, and yes, differing organic composition can cause profit rates to diverge for capitals which exploit their workers to the same degree. Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT