Paul Z wrote in [OPE-L:1845]:
> Productions of absolute and relative surplus value are
> distinct theoretical categories, not "subcategories" or something of the
> sort of "accumulation of capital".
I didn't suggest that relative and absolute s are "subcategories" of the
accumulation of capital. I suggested that they are "logical categories
introduced prior to the [analysis of the, JL] transformation of s into
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?
I mean that the total capital that is invested in c + v at time t+1
[Kt+1] is greater than the total capital, c + v, invested in period t
[Kt].
[Kt+1] can be used to purchase more c + v, or more c and the same v, or more
v and the same c than was purchased prior to time period t.
> Isn't there a typo here; one perhaps should be increase in c holding v
> constant (as I understand your line of questioning)?
My previous line of questioning indeed focused on the possibility of
increasing c holding v constant. I simply wanted to make the point,
though, that increasing v and holding c constant is a theoretical
possibility as well.
> (again, the same difficulty--"accumulation of capital" gets
> almost everything thrown in and so becomes almost worthless as a concept).
I am more than willing to agree that the term accumulation of capital is
frequently misused as a catch-all for capitalism. You will, in fact,
remember that I made that point in the very first [?] post I wrote on this
thread.
I *still* don't have an idea yet, though, of _where specifically_ you view
the misuse of the expression leading to analytical weaknesses in theory.
Could you give me a couple of examples?
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry