> Re fixed capital, I am having a tough time figuring out what Marx means here
>
> Capital 3 (Vintage pp 374)
>
> " The application of machinery reduces the price of the commodities
> produced with that machinery owing to various factors,which can always be
> reduced to the decline in [direct?rnb] labor absorbed by each individual
> commodity
I assume that the above is obvious to you from your comment.
> ; but in addition to this there is the decline in the portion of
> value that goes into the individual commodity as the depreciation element
> of the machinery.
For Marx, machines are often larger, more durable units of fixed capital.
> The slower the machinery's depreciation, the more
> commodities it is distributed over, the more living labour it replaces
> before the day when its reproduction falls due.
Think of a railroad replacing bunch of wagons. It is more durable, lasting a
long time, it replaces many of the wagon drivers for many decades.
> In both cases the quantity and value of the fixed constant capital are
> increased as against the
> variable."
Again, think of the railroad example.
>
>
> Here seems to be an additional reason to reject Brenner: if intl
> competition speeds up the rate of turnover by disallowing capitalists to
> sit on mountains of antiquated fixed capital, Dept I should absorb more
> labor to use the means of prod there to produce ever more advanced means of
> production; and this addition of labor should thus increase the mass of
> surplus value in the system, thereby exterting upward pressure on the
> profit rate.
>
Yes, that was the point of my Keynes book.
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael@ecst.csuchico.edu