[OPE-L:1767] Re: Accumulation of capital in Ch. 24, V1

Paul Zarembka (ecopaulz@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu)
Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:26:41 -0700

[ show plain text ]

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

> > How is accumulation DEFINED to achieve this statement? [P.Z.]
> However, in at least two separate posts, including #1762, I offered
> definitions of the accumulation of capital (which are simply expressions
> of the definition that Marx gave himself in the first paragraph of Ch.
> 24). For instance:
> > 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). [G.L.]

Jerry, I am at a loss for words. I had precisely quoted back to you this
very sentence of yours in my posting # 1758 and so am well aware of it
(and don't really need to read it again). In my understanding (I'm sorry
to have to put it so straight), a definition is not structured around "is
a consequence or expression of...". How do I say it more clearly? A
"consequence of" is the B of an A to B flow or movement. An "expression of"
is more fuzzy. Neither, to me, means "definition". (If I were to
ask you the definition of "value", what sentence structure would you use?)

> Paul's Z's only other comment is:
> > Please leave unproductive labor out of this discussion, which must be
> > around Volume 1 of Capital.
> Although productive and unproductive labor are discussed in V2, they are
> also defined and distinguished in V1.
> I am more than willing, however, to put this topic on the table if you
> will allow me to note that to the extent that the employment of
> productive vs. unproductive labor affects the magnitude of s produced, it
> also affects the accumulation of capital.

I love the topic of unproductive labor. I just don't see why it needs to
come up in the very definition of accumulation. But, OK, I accept the
grounds which you offer to put it on the table.

Cheers, Paul

A personal P.S.:
I guess I'm running into a dead end. I don't know what else to say. You
mention that I am a "hard man to please". I guess that is the lot of those
of us on the left. But I'm not trying to be difficult and in any case
thought I had certain credit to be difficult just once on OPE (I've laid
low on almost all of the discussion on value theory). Oh, well.