>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, you wrote:
>> Re Rakesh's [5367]:
>>
>>
>> The question, though, is whether the magnitude
>> of surplus-value *in the aggregate* is altered by
>> turnover time.
>
>Assuming the size of the working population, the working
>day and the real wage are being held constant, obviously not.
>
>A change in turnover time is just another way of saying that
>there is change in the organic composition. It affects only
>the rate of profit per person year of capital employed.
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. With turnover time doubled, the
capitalist would only need to have committed half the variable
capital over the course of a year. Grossmann is correct that a
reduction in turnover time is a countertendency to the falling rate
of profit.
c v sv s/v r
I 100 50 50 100% 33%
II 100 25 50 200% 40%
Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT