# [OPE-L:5377] Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value (stock and flow)

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Sun Apr 22 2001 - 01:08:58 EDT

```re 5376

>Rakesh wrote:
>>
>If the variable capital goes from turning over once a year to
>twice a year, then the rate of surplus value (s/v) has to be
>doubled...
><
>
>It is the stock of variable capital that turns over. While the
>annual flow of variable capital remains the same, the stock of
>variable capital might shrink from four weeks' outlay of wages to
>two weeks, for example because sales revenue comes in faster. A
>change in the stock V is not a change in the flow v, and it is
>the latter in ratio to s that defines the rate of surplus value.

Charlie, then are you not saying that the rate of profit can rise
from a decrease in production time even though the the rate of
surplus value remains the same. So then how would you account for the
rise in the rate of profit from 33 to 40% in the example which I
gave? I am interested in your answer.

The spike can't be due to a reduction in the composition of capital
because we are assuming that remains constant; it can't be due to a
decrease in the real wage since we are assuming that is constant as
well. It can't result from an increase in working hours since we are
holding that constant too.

So while I feel the force of your objection, I am yet unpersuaded
since I am at a loss how to explain increased profitability from a
reduction in production time save as an increase of surplus value in
relation to the variable capital that was advanced (though I am not
clear why you are calling the variable capital advanced the stock of
variable capital?)

You then object that this is strictly speaking not a rise in the rate
of surplus value which should be measured in terms of s in relation
to the flow of v, not the v that was advanced.  But why you say this
is not clear to me. If as a result of the halving of production time
workers can produce twice the quantity in one year, while the flow of
variable capital remains the same, then it seems obvious to me that
the rate of exploitation has indeed increased. It seems to me not to
matter that this rise in s/v has been effected by reduction in the v
that has to be advanced,  rather than a rise in s in relation to v in
flow terms (as you have put it). Either way, the workers have
suffered a rise in the rate of exploitation from a reduction in
production time.

Yours, Rakesh
```

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT