[OPE-L:5427] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Thu Apr 26 2001 - 05:00:58 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.

But I am interested in precisely those increases in labor 
productivity which reduce production time. You have just fixated on 
an weird reduction in production time which does not result from 
increased labor productivity. And then you claim that since in wine 
making a reduction in production time clearly does not stem from 
increased labor productivity--though it indeed allows for a reduction 
in stock and thus the OCC--*any* increase in profitability from 
reduced production time should be ascribed to a reduced OCC. But this 
is just a fallacy of generalizing from the clearly idiosyncratic.

>   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).

Yes but in my example wages would have to increase if the annual rate 
of surplus value were not to change and the rate of profit not to 

>  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!

Even if this is true, Marx did not refer to the annual rate of 
surplus value as flim flam or a mere arithmetical calculation or 
subjective or any less real. Moreover,  he referred to  the real and 
annual measures as both rates of surplus value, suggesting to me that 
the latter is only a more developed, complex index of what the former 
was trying to measure once turnover time is introduced--that is, the 
rate of surplus value is supposed to measure capital's effectiveness 
in appropriating a sum of surplus value from the working class in 
terms of the variable capital which capital had advanced. We can go 
over this again, but a rise in profitability from reduced production 
time is in my opinion better explained by understanding the increased 
annual rate of surplus value as heightened exploitation itself rather 
than as an expression of a reduced OCC. But there are obviously other 
options here.


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