Paul Z wrote in [OPE-L:1756]:
> Anyway, if by
> "capital" you mean or you interpret Marx to mean that it is fundamentally
> the social relation between capital and wage labor, then the above quote
> is nothing other than using s for more labor hours working more means of
> productions (the definition I offered in response to a question from
> Duncan). Do I interpret you correctly that you agree with such a definition?
Accumulation is a consequence and expression of either the increasing
production of surplus value (holding the division of s into capital and
revenue constant) and/or an increase in the productive consumption of s
(holding the magnitude of s constant).
More labor hours are, therefore, NOT required for accumulation.
More means of production are also NOT required.
Some additional factors to consider include the ratio of productive [of
s] to unproductive labor, increasing the productivity of labor through
technical change, i.e. increasing the magnitude of relative s with the
same amount of productive laborers (holding the intensity of labor
constant), increasing the intensity of labor (holding all other factors
constant), and a depression of wages below the value of labor power
(again ceteris paribus).
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry