[ show plain text ]
At 07:52 06/05/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Accumulation is driven by growth of the living labor portion, the portion
>which produces value and surplus value, not the dead labor portion --
>corresponding to a theme in Vol. 1 -- "accumulation of capital is,
>therefore, increase of the proletariat".
If you define it as such, you have no theory of accumulation
as disinct from the growth of the working class.
We know that with cheapening of the elements of constant
capital, it is possible for employment to rise whilst the value
of the capital stock remains unchanged. Thus we could have
growth of the proletariat whilst the capitalist class consumed
all of the surplus in idle luxury.
By identifying growth in employment with capital accumulation
you run the danger of detaching the concept from that
of the the capitalisation of surplus value.
One can say that capital accumulation tends to be
positively correlated with a growth of employment but
it is not identical.
>
>On your second point, accumulation of capital of course refers to much
>more than the falling rate of profit.
Yes but you asked me where my theory would differ from the neo-classical.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT