[OPE-L:1758] Re: Accumulation of capital in Ch. 24, V1

Paul Zarembka (ecopaulz@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu)
Sat, 13 Apr 1996 07:28:22 -0700

[ show plain text ]

On Sat, 13 Apr 1996 glevy@acnet.pratt.edu wrote:

> Paul Z wrote in [OPE-L:1756]:
> > Anyway, if by
> > "capital" you mean or you interpret Marx to mean that it is fundamentally
> > the social relation between capital and wage labor, then the above quote
> > is nothing other than using s for more labor hours working more means of
> > productions (the definition I offered in response to a question from
> > Duncan). Do I interpret you correctly that you agree with such a
> > definition?
> Accumulation is a consequence and expression of either the increasing
> production of surplus value (holding the division of s into capital and
> revenue constant) and/or an increase in the productive consumption of s
> (holding the magnitude of s constant).

Jerry, I'm still not clear if this is a definition or not, but anyway I agree
that accumulation leads to increased production of S.V. and agree that it
leads to more c.

> More labor hours are, therefore, NOT required for accumulation.

This sentence does not follow from your above statement unless you see
something I don't see. If you don't mind, please give me an example in
which the employment of labor hours does not grow, but accumulation does
take place. An example with s/v constant would be particularly
appropriate so as not to get us tied up in distribution issues.

> More means of production are also NOT required.

Meaning more c (dead labor time) or more physical machines somehow
measured (with all due respect to the Cambridge England school)? Anyway,
my above responses will be germaine.

> Some additional factors to consider include the ratio of productive [of
> s] to unproductive labor, increasing the productivity of labor through
> technical change, i.e. increasing the magnitude of relative s with the
> same amount of productive laborers (holding the intensity of labor
> constant), increasing the intensity of labor (holding all other factors
> constant), and a depression of wages below the value of labor power
> (again ceteris paribus).

Can we hold off on the above, until we get the basics clarified?

Paul Z.