>>> Roger Odisio <rodisio at igc.org> 01/29 9:00 PM >>>
At 02:32 PM 1/28/1999 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
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 ?
Roger: [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). _______
Charles: Victor Perlo in _Superprofits and Crises_ (1988 International) seems to think that the rate of exploitation is almost 400% by the 1980's in the U.S. I'm trying to think of the ratios. c over v , isn't it ? c going up relative to v is one way for that to happen isn't it ?
If you want to discuss this, I will have to put my economics numeracy cap on. You seem fairly serious.
Roger: 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. ________
Charles: How are wages not v ? _______
Roger: 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.
Charles: The capitalists are constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production. This means making machines that require fewer person hours of labor per unit of use-value. They can't help themselves, because other capitalists shall do it, and if any capitalist doesn't, they will be ruined by the others. This is more c, less v, thus rising occ. Glad your figures confirm it.
__________
Roger: 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. _______
Charles: This agrees with Perlo above. Perlo discusses the profits of control (lawyers' filthy lucre and the like)
Roger: 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.
Charles: The title of Perlo's book is SUPER-profits. The problem of realization is logically unavoidable as part of exploitation, as a large percentage of total demand is the wages of the exploited workers. As the rate of exploitation goes up, the problem is aggrievated. All of the other forms of "realization" would be the Wall Street boom, capital desperately searching for ways to expand, accumulate, accumulate that's Moses and the Prophets,no ?
>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 ?
Roger: [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.
Charles: Uh, this is Doug's list. He might have a clue or two on this :>). But thanks for putting me throw the exercise one more time. I'm just an amateur.
Roger: 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.
Charles: Problem for whom ? The bourgeoisie ? The objective factor is more complex for the working class, I suppose. I suppose the growing mass of wealth allows the bourgeoisie to buy off more opportunism in the working classes in the imperialist centers. Is that the problem for the working class revolution ?
CB