On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Ajit Sinha wrote:
> At 08:24 PM 4/14/97 -0700, Paul Zarembka wrote:
> >
> >You miss my point. I'm saying accumulation of capital can reabsorb
> >workers expelled by technological change, and also can absorb those from
> >penetration of pre-capitalist forms of production by capital and those
> >from population growth. Capital is greedy (if you like a quaint
> >expression better than, say, hunger for value and surplus value).
> _______________________
>
> Well, the rate of growth of capital cannot be faster than the rate of
> profit. Your position emplies that rate of profit will always be higher than
> the rate of growth of population plus the rate at which labor saving
> technical change "sets the workrs free". How can you establish this
> proposition?
Ajit,
1.) What is "capital"? Remember the Cambridge/Garegnani position that
there is no such thing. Do you mean "constant capital" or more machines
or what? I have the same problem with your using "umemployment" as a
substitute for reserve army of labor. Your concepts are reverting to
neoclassical categories (without explaining why or that it is a
temporary convenience or whatever).
2.) IF you mean "rate of growth of the capital--wage-labor relation", then
I don't understand your proposition. Suppose the rate of surplus value is
"one" and all the surplus value is used to reproduce an expanded
reproduction of capital. Employment can growth quite considerably and
certainly greater than population growth (remember you were claiming that
accumulation absorbs population growth, but not the "unemployment") with
or without production of relative surplus value.
Your comment "the rate of growth of capital cannot be faster than the rate
of profit" is correct for "constant capital", but doesn't bear on the
problem raised.
3.) What is so difficult about "rate of profit [being] higher than
the rate of growth of population plus the rate at which labor saving
technical change 'sets the workers free'"? Also, please rigorously define
"labor saving technical change" (remember again Cambridge). In any case,
please delete "always" from your sentence if it meant historically and
substitute "generally".
Paul