Roger sez:
> It is true that the rising "technical" composition of capital (the
> physical of means of production relative the the quantity of labor
> power--in contrast to the organic composition, which is the same ratio in
> value, not physical, terms) carries with it seeds of countervailing
> forces, such as a rising rate of exploitation and cheapening means of
> production. And, as I said, given those countervailing forces, Marx never
> showed the necessity of falling profit rates. To say nothing of the fact
> that many new forces on both sides are now important. In short, anyone
> sitting around waiting for capitalism to collapse because profits dry up
> ain't no marxist.
How the hell does one calculate the "technical composition of capital" ? While I'm no expert on value/crisis theory, I have read Vols 1-2 of Capital and this "tech comp of capital" is one thing I've never understood. What's the "universal equivalent" which abridges the flesh and bones and brain matter of living labor and the ingots andf polystyrenes and silcicon chips of dead labor ? I raised this point indirectly earlier but no one spoke to it.
And would _someone_ -- Roger, Rakesh, Fabian, _someone_ -- verify/disconfirm another point I rasied earlier -- that the main countervailing tendency to FROP is faster productitivy growth in Dep I than Dep II (occasioned by crisis, which compels revolutions in production in the means of production) ...
Mucho gracias,
John Gulick