(OPE-L) accumulation and de-accumulation of capital?

From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri Apr 23 2004 - 06:57:30 EDT

Hi Paul C.

>  Since v is a flow of value per annum, it has dimension person
>  hours per  year, by cancelling  we get that its dimension is
> persons - thus the flow measure of v is given in full time person
> equivalents.

Capital must take the money-form for there to be an accumulation
of capital.  I.e. following the actualization of surplus value, capitalists
must reinvest more money by buying more capital (in the form of c
and v).  Since both c and v, required to purchase means of production
and labour-power, take the money-form, it necessarily follows -- I
believe -- that _if_ the wages of  wage-workers whose salaries
are paid out of v rises then the accumulation of capital may have
increased (_if_ one defines accumulation of capital as Paul Z has
done) even though the quantity of productive wage-workers may have
remained stable or diminished (which itself is a possibility which is not
allowed for in his perspective).

Thus, suppose there is an increase in the next period in c from 80 to
100 and an increase in v from 100 to 105.   The way I understand
Paul Z's position is that this would represent an increase in the
of capital ... period.  Yet, he has also claimed that when there is an
accumulation of capital the quantity of productive wage-workers must
increase.  However,  suppose that the increase in v above is solely
attributable to a 5% increase in wages for these workers.  In that
circumstance an increase in the accumulation of capital will not necessarily
be associated with an increase in the size of the employed productive
wage-labour force.

But, Paul Z has indicated that he doesn't have the willingness and time to
discuss this matter, so I guess I should (now that I have made my point
more clearly) let this issue drop.

In  solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 24 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT