Re: [OPE-L] glossary for V1 of _Capital

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Wed Jan 09 2008 - 19:05:15 EST

Originator-Info: login-id=zarembka;
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-UB-Relay: (
X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7%


The below report of my entry to the Darity Encylcopedia is not a good
representation of what I wrote since I wasn't talking about s/v.  What I
wrote is that Marx's "principal book Capital is precisely a focus on that
exploitation [resulting from surplus value], so his accumulation of capital
ought to be understood as an increase in the numbers of workers being
exploited, including the related requirement to have built the factories
within which the workers would be working".  Note that this is quantifiable.

Paul C.,

In a reply to Dave, you write, "In my opinion the only way to make sense of
the concept of capital accumulation is in terms of the growth in the value
of the stock of means of production used as capital."  In contrast, in my
three-page entry I argue that a focus upon "an increase in the amount of
physical means of production within an economy or its firms ... is the
usage in neoclassical or mainstream economics".

Paul Z.

--On 1/9/2008 11:49 PM +0100 Dave Zachariah wrote:

> Finally, in an article Paul Z also suggests that capital should be
> measured by the rate of exploitation, but this is hard to claim to be an
> accumulation of some quantity.

(Vol.23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001  --  U.S. softcover forthcoming
                               video summary at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST