Paul Z wrote in [OPE-L:1758]:
> > 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.
> This sentence does not follow from your above statement unless you see
> something I don't see. If you don't mind, please give me an example in
> which the employment of labor hours does not grow, but accumulation does
> take place. An example with s/v constant would be particularly
> appropriate so as not to get us tied up in distribution issues.
If s/v is constant, but there is an increase in the productive
consumption of s, then accumulation will increase, ceteris paribus.
If the amount of labor hours is constant, but the ratio of productive
labor to unproductive labor increases, then accumulation will result,
ceteris paribus.
If the amount of labor hours is constant, but there is an increase in the
intensity of labor, then accumulation will result, ceteris paribus.
If the amount of labor hours is constant but wages are depressed below
(or further below) the value of labor power, then accumulation will
result, ceteris paribus.
If the amount of labor hours is constant but there is an increase in the
production of relative s through increasing technical change, then
accumulation will result, ceteris paribus.
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry