>
>Jerry: "(1) If v is assumed to equal 0, then accumulation can not happen
>since v
>at time t + 1 would have to be *greater* than at time t. Yet, this can not
>happen by assumption -- so accumulation is impossible by assumption."
>Andrew:
>Not as I understand "Paul Z's" definition (which is also Marx's). If
>increasing c + v means that the sum of c and v in period t+1 exceeds the sum
>of c and v at time t, there can be accumulation even with a fall in v, as long
>as it is offset by a larger rise in c.
>
Paul C:
If v were 0 then there would be no incentive for capitalists to accumulate
constant capital. It would obviously be cheaper to throw away their
machines and have all the work done by hand. The assumption of free labour
power undermines the premise of accumulation.
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html