From: Paul C (clyder@GN.APC.ORG)
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 17:44:57 EDT
Paul Zarembka wrote: >>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 >> >> > >Paulo, If the same hours of labor power is engaged, the same value is >produced. If real wages is constant and there is no production of >relative surplus value, then surplus value also hasn't changed. If >there is, however, production of relative surplus value, so that s/v >rises, then we call it 'production of relative surplus value'. To ALSO >call the latter 'accumulation of capital' only leads to confusions. Paul > > > > I think your position Paul tends to make it hard to understand over accumulation and the falling rate of profit. If one defines accumulation in terms of extension of the workforce, then there must be net disaccumulation wherever the working population shrinks. However the stock of capital per worker can rise, and this is accumultion of constant capital. It obviously then creates presures to lower the rate of profit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT