[OPE-L:66] RE: More Paradox of Book I, Ch 25 (more digression)

John R. Ernst (ernst@pipeline.com)
Sun, 17 Sep 1995 22:55:24 -0700

[ show plain text ]


I am not sure if we agree or disagree on tha matter of the nature of the
variables in
the accumulation process. Your point in OPE-L:65, reproduced below, seems
show how the rate of accumulation does indeed become the independent
once fixed capital becomes part of the accumulation process.


On Sun, 17 Sep 1995 "Michael A. Lebowitz" <mlebowit@sfu.ca> said:

>In message Sat, 16 Sep 1995 17:47:10 -0700, "John R. Ernst"
><ernst@pipeline.com> writes(edited) :
>> Concerning Mike's post (OPE 60) on dependent and independent
it seems to me that up to the what
>> Marx calls the "period of manufacture", the wage is indeed the
>> variable and the the rate of accumulation the dependent. Once fixed
>> capital is introduced the dependent becomes the imdependent and vice
>> versa. Otherwise, why make a big deal out of the two periods?
> One reason to make the distinction is that it is only when fixed
>(and the substitution of machinery for living labour) predominates that
>now constantly reproduces a reserve army and thus reproduces an essential

>condition of existence. Put another way, capitalism is not fully an
>system until it produces its own premises; and this requires the
development of
>the specifically capitalist mode of production-- machinery and the factory

> in solidarity,
> mike
>Michael A. Lebowitz
>Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A
>Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
>Home: (604) 255-0382
>Lasqueti Island (current location): (604) 333-8810 e-mail: mlebowit@sfu.ca