[OPE-L:5463] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Sun Apr 29 2001 - 19:47:26 EDT

OK, that now I'm back from a very successful 
"Squatter's May Day"  Tompkins Square Park 
concert that was produced by some anarchist and 
squatter friends, I'll address the following question 
in Rakesh's [5461].

> Jerry, you mean even with the real or simple
>  rate of surplus value  remains constant. What is
>  the 'status' of the annual rate of surplus 
> value in your estimation?

Suppose there are now two turnovers per annum
instead of 1.  The difference in turnover time does
not  (necessarily) cause a real rate of 
surplus value / annual rate of surplus value 
divergence. It all depends on whether the 
composition of capital is altered after the first
turnover when the second period begins. 
If the composition of capital remains the same,
then the two are identical.  What matters is
the mass of surplus value that capitalists can
invest at the end of the first turnover in c and
v. In the example of a reduction in turnover
time caused by a reduction in circulation time,
then additional capital that had previously
taken the form of commodity capital can now
be invested into additional c + v at an earlier
date. If  c and v are invested in the same
proportions as before then there is no divergence
in that ratio, c.p..

> The important thing is that if any capital is to lie 
> fallow, any 
> capitalist will prefer it to then be in the form of money capital.

This is a matter where capitalist preferences may
not enter into it. In the example I gave ...of
course ... the capitalists would have preferred that
their commodity capital had been transformed
into money-capital.  This is just another way of
saying that they would 'prefer' to reduce
their stock of commodity capital and sell their
inventory that represents unsold output.
To be also to sell these commodities they have
to find buyers -- whatever their individual

> At 
> least in that form he will be able to get some 
> interest.

Right -- but as I explained above it may not
be an option depending on the form that the
'fallow' capital is in. 

In solidarity, Jerry

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