My apologies, Charles. These questions are obviously too complex, and important, to be answered quickly and briefly here on the list. I do appreciate your attempt, however. So let me say a few things at least.
>Roger:
>So how about a couple of questions. Do you think the organic compostion has
>been rising since WWII?
>Charles: Probably. Seems like there's a lot more constant capital in the
world. There a lot more v too. But I'd have to look at some books on that;
or raise it with the Marxist politcal economists. Doug may address it in
_Wall Street_
>You probably have an opinion.
>Roger:
> Are workers being paid more in wages than their
>cost of reproduction?
>Charles: I would guess not and certainly not much more. The bourgeoisie
constantly try to drive this down to the minimum. What do you say is the
answer ?
[NEW STUFF] V is the reproduction cost of productive labor (only), their "social subsistence" not their wages. It is a socially determined cost, separate from the production process. In the US by the early 70s, as a general matter wages exceeded v by a considerable amount (see, e.g., Ronald Meek at that time saying: if Marx were alive, he would have recognized that workers were getting wages that were substantially higher than v, and he would have tried to explain it). Workers were sharing in the growth of s. At the same time, profits, as one part of realized surplue value, hit historic highs for the whole post-WWII period in the mid 60s (profit rate basis).
Since then the story is well known. Through a variety of devices, capital has been pushing wages back toward v. There is still a ways to go, I think.
C is the part of fixed capital used up in a production cycle (roughly depreciation). It has been growing relative to v (c/v rising) for some time now (with perhaps a lull during the 60s expansion as more labored was employed), when each is fairly carefully measured. So one condition of Marx's law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is satisfied: rising organic composition.
But that has been absolutely swamped by a much larger growth in the rate of exploitation, s/v, when all the forms in which surplus value is realized are taken into account--including profits, interest payments, wages of unproductive and noncapitalist labor, government costs beyond employee wages, advertising, most of what lawyers do, etc. So the *potential* profit rate (s/c+v) has been soaring. But not actual realized profits. An increasing portion of the surplus value is realized in these other forms. While many of them are waste in terms of social usefulness, they are necessary expenditures for the continued hegemony of capital. The problem is these other forms are not as reliable as surplus absorption as the capitalist taking all of s for himself. Greater instability is one result.
>Roger:
> How does
>the creation of value in the financial sphere, which Doug and others have
>been discussing, fit into all of this?
>
>Charles: The "creation" of value ? I'd say the surplus is divided up, but
not created in the financial sphere.
>"It" "fits in" in that we are in the imperialist phase of capitalism , in
which there is a financial oligarchy resulting from the merger of finance
and industrial capital. The financial sphere is the dominating sphere of
monopoly capitalism. The greatest superprofits are made there. As to the
impact on the business cycle , if that is "all of this", credit plays a roll in
>papering over some gaps in realization of profits, thereby delaying some
busting, maybe.
>
>What's your answer ?
[NEW STUFF] Here's the nub of why I raised some of these questions. On top of the massive mound of surplus vale being created in production, and the attendant realization problems always threatening to lurch things in one way or another, is added the financial bubble of additional wealth now growing so rapidly. Marxian analysis is about the production cycle. A capitalist advances money at the beginning, M (c+v), produces a commodity, C, and sells it for more money than he advanced, M' (c+v+s). But that now is only one way to increase M. The financial sector has created many others, most of which I don't understand. To the individual capitalist it's all fungible M at his disposable, though different forms/from different sources may come with different strings attached. When you add this financial bubble to the growing mass of surplus value created in production, you get a whole new dimension of problem.