Paul Z is a hard man to please. In [OPE-L: 1763], he asks me *four* times
in response to my #1762:
> How is accumulation DEFINED to achieve this statement?
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).
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.
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry