From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Wed Apr 21 2004 - 21:15:53 EDT
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: > > Since accumulation of capital must include increasing the number of > > workers subject to exploitation, penetration of non-capitalist modes of > > production must be included in moments of accumulation of capital, but I > > don't know where, in your five moments, you intend to include that. > > Hi Paul Z. > > First, an abstract, hypothetical question: > Suppose the wages of productive workers has gone up by 10% > and there is an increase in v of 10%. In this case, > the increase in v would not necessarily cause a increase in > the quantity of exploited workers. Supposing also that c > goes up -- and thus c & v simultaneously rise -- would this > by your understanding represent an increase in the > accumulation of capital? You want to hold c/v, the organic composition of capital, fixed. But v increasing confused a distribution question (s/v changing) with a technological. Can I answer you using c/(v+s), which avoid the distributional qustion? > A more concrete question: the presumption of the penetration > of capital into areas of the globe where non-capitalist > modes of production have dominated is that the quantity of > wage-laborers exploited by capital will increase. In recent > decades, though, the percentage of the population who are > wage-earners employed by capital in many places in the world > has _not_ grown. I believe this is be factually incorrect, but have not organized the required data. > Instead, what has grown significantly is the > percentage of non-wage-earners employed in the petty commodity > sector (the 'informal sector'). Whether one conceives of this > group as part of the industrial reserve army or in some > other way, if we take your definition of the accumulation of > capital and _if_ it is true that the quantity of wage-earners > who are employed by capital and who produce surplus value has > _not_ grown in recent decades, then has the accumulation of > capital increased during this time period? Under what > circumstances would there be a de-accumulation of capital? I'll hold on this until we have an understanding on c/(v+s). Paul z.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 23 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT