>On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari quoted me: > >> >Yes. Vol. II, Ch XVI, section 1 (Moscow ed., p. 308): >> > >> >"It follows ... from what has been set forth above that the annual >> >rate of surplus-value coincides only in one single case with the real >> >rate of surplus-value which expresses the degree of exploitation of >> >labour; namely in the case where the advanced capital is turned over >> >only once a year..." >> > >> >There are numerous other places where the same distinction is made or >> >implied, and Marx consisently uses the term "real rate of surplus >> >value" for the ordinary s/v. > >And wrote: > >> ... I read the passage which you quote to be underlining that >> real rate of exploitation expresses the degree of exploitation >> only when the advanced capital is turned over once a year. > >That is, you choose to "read" the opposite of what Marx actually says. >Sheesh. In the example that Marx constructs, where one capital has an >"annual rate of surplus value" of 100% and the other one 1000%, due to >differing turnovers, yet they both have s/v = 100%, Marx clearly >states that the "degree of exploitation" is the same in the two cases. > >Allin. If the degree of exploitation is the same, then Marx must be attributing the difference in profitability to time. Can time do such work? You haven't answered my question. Why did Marx use the same phrase rate of surplus value for the volume 2 annual determinant and the volume one "real" rate if he did not mean to suggest one was more a complex, developed measure than the other of the same relation? After all, he could have referred to the annual rate of surplus value as the return on variable capital advanced and thus distanced the two determinants from each other. But by using the same phrase for both determinants, he seems to me to be saying that the annual rate is only the more developed form of the real or simple rate as turnover time is considered. The point is that the real or simple rate of surplus value is not completely correct, as Engels underlines. And if Marx did have *time* itself increase and decrease profitability--can you find a passage in which Marx thingifies time as such an "independent variable"--would such a claim be consistent with his theory or the reality of the situation? What about the latter passage in which Marx seems to describe workers as dominated by their product as production time is lessened--does this not seem to describe a situtation of heightened exploitation? Rakesh ps I have yet to consult Geoffrey Kay's Economic theory of the working class in which (if memory serves me) the difference between the annual and real rate of surplus value is analyzed. If anyone knows of other places where this difference is discussed in some detail in the secondary literature, please let me know. Thanks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT