From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Tue Apr 27 2004 - 15:24:35 EDT
Hi Jerry, In discussing the determinants of the magnitude of accumulated capital Marx refers to the possibility that wages be below the value of labor power. In that case, he says, part of the consumption fund of workers is transformed in accumulation fund. Now, we can think the reverse way: if wages stand above the value of labor power we could say that part of the accumulation fund (the unconsumed surplus value) becomes consumption fund of the working class. It is interesting that besides all the factors that determine the magnitude of accumulation Marx always calls attention to the fact that accumulation, to some degree, is independent of the magnitude of surplus value. I think he is referring to the incorporation of the forces and richness of nature, for which capital pays nothing.. Nonetheless, since there is a use value dimension to accumulation, to which he also calls attention, the incorporation of use values given by nature acts as a lever of accumulation. Finally a point directet to Zarembka: I wonder why we canīt consider a situation in which there augmentation of means of production whitout increasing the labor force as Accumulation of Capital? After all it is still conversion of surplus value into additional capital, except that due to a combination of slow growth and rapid increase in technical composition the labor force stay the same or even contracts in number. Paulo "Gerald A. Levy" wrote: > Hi Paolo. > > > If the value of the means of production are reduced > > we can have capital accumulation with a lower M > > at the beginning of the new circuit. > > Good point. A cheapening of the elements of constant > capital, e.g. brought about by technological change and > representing moral depreciation, could mean just that. > > I'm glad you brought up the topic of how technological > change fits into this process. But, what happens when > there is technological change in those branches of production > in Department II which produce commodities destined for > working-class consumption? > > Suppose that the value of means of consumption for > the working-class goes down. What effect on capital > accumulation will that have? Unless workers agreed to > a reduction in their nominal wages (highly unlikely) then > this will cause their real wages to go up. If that happens > how will that affect the magnitude of unpaid labor time > and surplus value? It could be that under certain > circumstances even if the M goes up, s and capital > accumulation could go down. > > In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 28 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT