From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri Apr 23 2004 - 06:57:30 EDT
Hi Paul C. > Since v is a flow of value per annum, it has dimension person > hours per year, by cancelling we get that its dimension is > persons - thus the flow measure of v is given in full time person > equivalents. Capital must take the money-form for there to be an accumulation of capital. I.e. following the actualization of surplus value, capitalists must reinvest more money by buying more capital (in the form of c and v). Since both c and v, required to purchase means of production and labour-power, take the money-form, it necessarily follows -- I believe -- that _if_ the wages of wage-workers whose salaries are paid out of v rises then the accumulation of capital may have increased (_if_ one defines accumulation of capital as Paul Z has done) even though the quantity of productive wage-workers may have remained stable or diminished (which itself is a possibility which is not allowed for in his perspective). Thus, suppose there is an increase in the next period in c from 80 to 100 and an increase in v from 100 to 105. The way I understand Paul Z's position is that this would represent an increase in the accumulation of capital ... period. Yet, he has also claimed that when there is an accumulation of capital the quantity of productive wage-workers must increase. However, suppose that the increase in v above is solely attributable to a 5% increase in wages for these workers. In that circumstance an increase in the accumulation of capital will not necessarily be associated with an increase in the size of the employed productive wage-labour force. But, Paul Z has indicated that he doesn't have the willingness and time to discuss this matter, so I guess I should (now that I have made my point more clearly) let this issue drop. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 24 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT