[OPE-L:5424] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value

From: Allin Cottrell (cottrell@wfu.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 25 2001 - 16:08:55 EDT

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:

> I still think the annual rate of surplus value is not a mere
> arithematical side effect, as Allin puts it; with this concept it
> can be clarified that if with a halving of production time workers
> are not successful in doubling their wages or the flow of variable
> capital, they have allowed capital to use their own product to
> exploit them at a higher rate....

This is not a clarification, Rakesh, it's a confusion.  You're
conflating the calendar "time of production" (as in my wine example)
with the worker-hours it takes to produce stuff.  If the winery
workers' wages were doubled, when the labour-time required to produce
a bottle of wine has not changed, the rate of exploitation would be
substantially reduced (e.g. if s/v were 100% originally, it would now
be zero and there would be no profits at all).  Marx clearly and
consistently links "the rate of exploitation" to the "real rate of
surplus value", s/v; and it's not just what Marx said -- he's right!


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