Reactions to posting come so fast, I cannot always pull the time away to
respond. So, this and the next two are a couple of days behind. P.Z.
On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Gerald Levy wrote:
> .. but Marx was pretty clear in stating in V3, Chs. XIII + XIV that the
> LTGRPD will occur with a constant or *rising* (up to a point) s/v and that
> the same mechanism that causes the rate of surplus value to rise also
> causes the general r to decline. Are you suggesting that the general r
> will *only* fall with a constant (or decreasing) s/v?
I don't have a problem with a small rise in s/v. However, I am
implicitly opposing a "general equilibrium" type interpretation onto
Marx, i.e., just because s/v rises because of production of relative
surplus value does not mean that that s/v should not be set aside in
understanding the falling tendency of r.
> > Assuming s/v fixed is assuming a stabilized (in some sense) relation
> > of capital to labor.
>
> I don't understand this. Could you explain what you mean?
The structure in dominance in the capitalist mode of production is the
social relations of production. The relative strength of
capital--wage-labor social relation can be captured by the ratio s/v.
Taking s/v constant in discussing r is setting aside the relative class
strengths to focus on another matter: why r might have a tendency to fall
due to changes in technical conditions of production.
Paul Z.