On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > Again Marx does not counterpose the annual rate of surplus value > to the rate of exploitation. We have S/V vs. S/v. The question > becomes what is a better measure of exploitation of the working > class by the owning class once we consider turnover time. The only meaningful measure of exploitation, per se, is the division of the working day into its necessary and surplus components: what proportion of their time do the workers work for themselves, and what proportion for the capitalists? Anything else is "playing with numbers". Financial ratios that may be calculated by capitalists (or by Engels on their behalf) are another matter; while they may have their uses they are not a measure of exploitation. Rakesh says: > I argued implicitly in 5380 that since a reduction in production > time, cet par., is best understood as an increase in the > exploitation of the working class... And of my example, with $1000 laid out either monthly or weekly, he says: > This is not a good example of a reduction in production time. It > takes 1000 working days in both cases to produce the same amount > [of physical output]... It had better take the same working time to produce the same physical output, or else we are conflating (a) an increase in relative surplus value of the ordinary Vol. I sort, which certainly corresponds to increased exploitation, with (b) an effect that is strictly due to a change in "turnover time" (i.e. something that was not dealt with in Vol. I). Allin Cottrell.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT