On Sun, 21 Apr 1996 glevy@acnet.pratt.edu wrote [asking me]:
> As logical categories, absolute and relative s are introduced prior to the
> transformation of s into capital. They are presuppositions for an
> analysis of the accumulation of capital since an increase in the
> magnitude of s, at this level of analysis, will lead to an increase in
> the accumulation of capital (if we hold the division of s into capital
> and revenue constant).
>
> Do you agree?
Not really. Productions of absolute and relative surplus value are
distinct theoretical categories, not "subcategories" or something of the
sort of "accumulation of capital".
> If an increase in absolute or relative s (or a depression of wages below
> the value of labor power) leads to an increase in capital invested, what
> do we call it?
When you write "an increase in capital invested", do you mean more
machinery, more c, or extension of capitalist exploitation?
> Do we call it the accumulation of capital?
Depends. It goes back to our prior discussion.
> If so, we should recognize that the additional capital can be invested in
> more c and v (Paul Z's definition), or an increase in v holding c
> constant -- possible if there is an underutilization of existing c -- or
> an increase in v holding c constant.
Isn't there a typo here; one perhaps should be increase in c holding v
constant (as I understand your line of questioning)?
> While we could advance reasons for why the second and third possibilities
> might be special cases, what is the *name* that we give to those
> possibilities?
See above and prior discussion, specifically my non-agreement to subsume
production of abs. and rel. s. v. under the concept of "accumulation of
capital" (again, the same difficulty--"accumulation of capital" gets
almost everything thrown in and so becomes almost worthless as a concept).
Paul Z.