Re: [OPE] Just published: THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION OF CRISIS (RPE, Vol. 26)

Dave,

I wonder if you have been following this discussion carefully enough.
Paul C. says that profits can remain at $10 billion as capital stock
moves from $100 billion, to 95, to 50 and continue on downward toward
0. This means capital stock (means of production) are not required for
a sustained level of profits.

If that were true, then workers could run their own operations with
their own labor power and wouldn't need capitalists controlling means of
production.

It is not my own "odd conclusion" but the implication of Paul C's
explanation of his paper. And I don't see how your formula for R has
bearing on the above (by the way, what does "share of surplus value"
refer to).

Paul Z.

=====
(V23) HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, Seven Stories Press, 2nd ed. softcover
(V24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA (V25) WHY CAPITALISM SURVIVES CRISES
(V26) THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION OF CRISIS
====> Research in Political Economy, Emerald Group, Bingley, UK
====> P.Zarembka, Ed., www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?issn=0161-7230
.

On 12/1/2010 5:18 AM, Dave Zachariah wrote:
> On 2010-12-01 01:21, Paul Zarembka wrote:
>
>> You are confirming that means of production are unnecessary, that all
>> that capitalists need is a labor force. The whole structure of Marx's
>> thought is rendered worthless because control over means of production
>> becomes irrelevant. Workers are no longer at the mercy of capitalists.
>> There is no basis for a class society.
>>
> This does not follow at all.
>
> Suppose you do a Marxian decomposition of the average rate of profit of
> the invested capital stock:
>
> R = share of surplus labour x ratio of living to dead labour
>
> Now suppose someone asked you to show how the relative growth rate of R
> depended on the relative growth rates of the share of surplus labour and
> the ratio of living to dead labour. That is quite straight-forward. Then
> you were asked under what conditions on those variables would yield the
> relative growth rate of R equal to zero? Your odd conclusion will
> certainly not follow from this.
>
> Clearly, the relative growth rate of the ratio of living to dead labour
> would depend on how fast the amount of labour grows as well as how much
> capitalists decide to reinvest rather than unproductively consume.
>
> //Dave Z
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Dec 1 10:30:02 2010