# Re: [OPE-L] Theoretical/empirical error in Marx in converting surplus value into additional capital?

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Sat Jul 28 2007 - 18:39:53 EDT

```--On Saturday, July 28, 2007 12:24 PM -0400 Howard Engelskirchen
<howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> wrote:

> I may not understand the problem you present, but different things are
> going on in the passages from Capital that you refer us to.
>
> Chapter 9 introduces the concept of the rate of surplus value, s/v.
>
> For this purpose, although Marx uses data given by a Manchester
> manufacturer for a week in April 1871 which appear to have included
> figures for machinery, etc., the constant part of the value of the
> product is set at zero.  We consider the ratio of surplus and variable
> capital only.

Howard,

I agree to all of the above, including the purpose of the discussion in
Chp. 9.  Still, we have data which Marx assures us can be relied upon.

> When Engels recovers this example in Book III, he uses it to illustrate
> the rate of profit.  Now constant capital must be considered.  He takes
> machinery of \$10,000 and assumes circulating capital of \$2,500, giving a
> total C of \$12,500.  Total wages paid are \$2,704, but they are turned over
> 8.5 times so v is only 318.  Your figure of roughly 38 (39?) appears to
> assume eight and a half turnovers.  If there were no turnover, then the
> figure would be about 4.6.

The 8 1/2 turnovers of wages is Engels relying upon Marx's presentation of
the data along with his assumption that circulating capital is 25% of fixed
capital (which he considers rather on the high side). The number 38 is
Engel's (12,182 : 318) although he reports percentages 97.5 : 2.5 (making
39 the ratio due to rounding).

> In Chapter 24 of volume 1 there is no consideration of turnover.

Correct, which of course doesn't mean unity would be apppropriate.

> Nor is there any suggestion the example of Chapter 9 is being recovered.

Insofar he repeats that he is using cotton spinning as his illustration
("suppose a spinner..."), that he had analyzed spinning empirically, and we
know of the huge fixed capital cost involved, I would disagree.

> Marx
> says "cotton, machinery, &c." are \$8000 and wages \$2000.  Later he says
> \$1600 of the \$2000 surplus will be used for the purchase of "cotton, &c."
> which reasonably may be read to include machinery.  C/v is 4 in both
> cases.

The 'machinery' included must be the wear and tear of spindles, not the
cost of new stock of spindles.  The big circulating capital expense must be
the cotton.  Otherwise, he would be very, very off the mark of the Chp. 9
data.  Further, he even drops "machinery" is the second phrasing.

> That is, the problem, if I understand it, seems to arise from importing
> the turnover included in the Bk III example into the conversion example
> of Bk I. What is the reason for assuming that Chapter 24 must include
> turnover?

Turnover is always there, implicitly as least.  You must be asking why not
take turnover as unity?  But we know that fixed capital turnover in this
case is at least ten years (because Marx refers to wear and tear at 10%;
while my own limited research found that mull spindles last some 40 years,
I suspect Marx is also including normal maintenance in his 10%).

My focus is upon Chp. 24's conversion of surplus value into capital.  My
reply to Fred may help in understanding what's involved.  Another way to
characterize the problem is the following.  Take C as the stock of
spindles, c as the consumption of constant capital, and v as variable
capital.  Then, Marx should have had the newly committed cost as C + c + v
in order to get the new production process rolling, not simply c + v.

If the turnover of wages were once yearly at £2,704, circulating capital in
raw materials would have to rise accordingly, i.e., in the ratio 342 : 52
(Marx, p. 210-212), as you would be making the case that the spun cotton is
not sold until one year after production, instead of after six+ weeks.
This calculates out to £17,784 for unspun cotton alone.  Wear and tear
would be replaced by £10,000 annual turnover of fixed capital in spindles,
building rent remains at £300, auxiliary materials £520; all totaling
£31,308. Output is not changed thereby, so revenue is still £26,520 and now
surplus value equals -£4788.  In sum, taking turnover at unity, leads to a
bankrupt firm.  I conclude that failure to mention turnover is not
equivalent to assuming unitary turnover.

Howard, I want to thank you for raising this consideration and if you are
not satisfied I'd welcome further reply.

Paul Z.

************************************************************************
(Vol.23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001  "a benchmark in 9/11 research"
(Vol.24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA AND IN POLAND AND SYRIA
Research in Political Economy, P.Zarembka,ed, Elsevier hardback
********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
```

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 02 2007 - 00:00:07 EDT