-- 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) ...
Marx of course realised that machines in the investment sector would be of progressively superior design allowing a smaller proportion of the workforce to keep a given stock of capital intact. If we assume no growth in that stock, then workers could be moved from div I to div II to now allow for a second shift with that machinery, which would then increase the real output that will be divied up b/t workers and capitalists per the class struggle. Both capitalists and workers could enjoy higher real incomes, and crisis seemingly avoided.
Yet there is a problem once we consider historical time. To avoid 'moral depreciation' this then would force the quick amortization of machines brought into existence under less productive conditions. In turn, this would encourage a resort to longer hours and multiple shifts to ensure amortization, making the working day of the equipment (to speak fetishistically) twice to thrice of the average wage earner.
So The first point (and there are many things to be said here) is that however much surplus value (or net output) is projected to rise due to bringing on such cheaper equipment, it has to be sufficient to cover losses on that old capital brought into being under less productive conditions. The absolute growth of capital requires a rate of surplus value large enough to cover both the new investments and the devaluation of the existing capital.
yrs, rakesh