re 5428 > > >The issue can perhaps be clarified by dimensional analysis. > >The rate of exploitation s/v as the ratio of two flows is a dimensionless >number. > >The organic composition of capital can be treated in two ways >c/v which is a flow measure, and as such is also a dimensionless >number. Or as C/v which is of the form >C person hours person hours >- = ---------------- = ---------- >v person hours per year persons > >Note that person hours per year is an expression of the form >persons x time >---------- > time > >and thus simplifies to persons > >So organic composition of capital in the form C/v expresses the >number of hours or years of embodied labour existing per worker. >As such it must clearly be affected by the labour embodied in >partially made goods. > >The other form of organic composition, which lends itself to >empirical work in i/o tables is c/v which is the ratio of two >flows and as such is dimensionless. It expresses the division >of the labour force into those producing means of production >and those producing consumer goods. > >The dimensional calculus has been known since Newton, >and is fundamental to having a clear understanding of how >to distinguish flow from stock quantities. The practice of >the classical economists, including Marx of analysing things >in terms of fixed production periods can obscure the >dimensional properties of the quantities that they are >dealing with. I shall think about what you are saying here, Paul C, but in my estimation the OCC is neither a non-dimensional flow measure nor as an annual C/v measure. The "dimension" (if I understand your use of terms) for the OCC is the production period itself; that is, the OCC measures the constant capital laid out for the machines, raw materials and building which will be "used up" in relation to the variable capital advanced for any one production cycle. In case 2 of my example what precisely does not change is the constant capital laid out for each production cycle. What is halved is the variable capital needed to complete each round of production. So in my example it is precisely not due to a reduction in the OCC that the improved per annum profit rate can be explained. Indeed the OCC rises, yet the profit rate improves without a change in the real wage! How can this be? Case 2 then would effectively have to be a case of the intensification of labor--labor produces twice as much "saleable output" in a given period of time. We can argue whether this intensification of labor is the same as a rise in the exploitation of labor. I argue that this intensification is exactly what the rise in the annual rate of surplus value is measuring, and it should indeed be considered as a rise in the rate of exploitation. But let me think over what you and Allin are saying,and I'll look at the note tonight. Thanks for the analysis of these thorny issues. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT