Mike,
I am not sure if we agree or disagree on tha matter of the nature of the
variables in
the accumulation process. Your point in OPE-L:65, reproduced below, seems
to
show how the rate of accumulation does indeed become the independent
variable
once fixed capital becomes part of the accumulation process.
John
On Sun, 17 Sep 1995 "Michael A. Lebowitz" <mlebowit@sfu.ca> said:
>In message Sat, 16 Sep 1995 17:47:10 -0700, "John R. Ernst"
><ernst@pipeline.com> writes(edited) :
>
>> Concerning Mike's post (OPE 60) on dependent and independent
variables,
it seems to me that up to the what
>> Marx calls the "period of manufacture", the wage is indeed the
independent
>> variable and the the rate of accumulation the dependent. Once fixed
>> capital is introduced the dependent becomes the imdependent and vice
>> versa. Otherwise, why make a big deal out of the two periods?
>>
> One reason to make the distinction is that it is only when fixed
capital
>(and the substitution of machinery for living labour) predominates that
capital
>now constantly reproduces a reserve army and thus reproduces an essential
>condition of existence. Put another way, capitalism is not fully an
organic
>system until it produces its own premises; and this requires the
development of
>the specifically capitalist mode of production-- machinery and the factory
>system.
> in solidarity,
> mike
>---------------------------
>Michael A. Lebowitz
>Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A
1S6
>Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
>Home: (604) 255-0382
>Lasqueti Island (current location): (604) 333-8810 e-mail: mlebowit@sfu.ca