>I think it makes more sense to take surplus value as the fraction of
>the working day, and to separate movements in the rate of turnover
>analytically. Rakesh wants to measure surplus value per turnover of
>capital, which is a coherent idea, but the conventional division is
>probably better to maintain.
>
>Duncan
Duncan, I maintain the convention division (the real or simple rate
of surplus value) in the annual rate of surplus value; it just
becomes a component of a more complete measure.
As Marx puts it:
real rate of sv x variable capital advanced x n
________________________________________________
variable capital advanced
n of course is the # of turnovers.
In this more complete measure we do indeed have to retain the real
rate of surplus value; we just build on it. Moreover, even though the
rate of surplus will increase as long as n is greater than 1, the
origin of the annual mass of surplus value (in real terms) remains
the surplus labor performed during the working day.
Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT