From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 15:34:03 EDT
Sorry Paul to have bypassed your question. In a subsequent post I think some of the answer was thought out: in the use value sense. The ability to extract surplus value is based on how many workers capital is able to engage. In the case under consideration more workers would be angaged by a smaller amount of advanced money capital. This seems to be Marx´s argument. Paulo Paul C wrote: > Francisco Paulo Cipolla wrote: > > >Jerry, you say: > >All I was saying is that if we look at the circuit M - C - M' then > >for there to be capital accumulation the M that goes towards the > >purchase of c and v in the next period of production must be > >greater than the M that began the previous period. Thus, the M > >in Period 2 must be a greater quantity than the M that began > >Period I. There is no need here for complications that arise > >because of commodity-money vs. non-commodity-money regimes. > > > >Paulo: but this is not necessarily so. 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. > > > > > > > > > In what sense then is that an accumulation of capital? > The capital stock would not have risen.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT