On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, you wrote: > >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, you wrote: > > Sure the magnitude of surplus value is not affected (as Jerry, Paul C > and Charlie seem to be all arguing), the rate of surplus value > however is. And the rate of surplus value is obviously a (if not the > main concern) concern of vol 1, so this suggests that the > determinants of s/v are not exhausatively treated in volume one, as > Fred *seems* to be suggesting to me. And thus the architectonic of > the three volumes is not what Fred seems to be saying it is. > > 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--even > assuming the size of the working population, the working day and the > real wage are being held constant. This is a stock/flow confustion. Variable capital should always be seen as a flow measure. It does not turn over. What does it mean for variable capital to turnover twice as fast if the working day and population remain the same? What happens is that work is done and immediately transfers its value to work in progress. A reduction in the turnover time by for example reducing stocks of unsold goods does not affect the flow of value being created which is entirely determined by the number of million hours per day worked. The efect that you call a reduction in the turnover time of variable capital is actually a reduction in the stock of products that are held in factories and warehouses. -- Paul Cockshott paul@cockshott.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT