> >How the hell does one calculate the "technical composition of capital" ?
Rakesh sez:
> Good question. There's a TCC (technical composition of capital), OCC
> (organic composition) and VCC (value composition).
>
> As Moseley, Cogoy note, the OCC allowed Marx to isolate the effect of
> technical change on the value composition which is also affected by other
> factors, e.g.,, devaluation brought about by a crisis (perhaps due to
> upward pressure on the OCC).
>
> These distinctions help us to understand crisis during which a greater mass
> of machinery (in technical terms) can be bought for less than previously
> while the workers needed to work it can be had cheaper too. This will allow
> the capitalists to give more machinery (in physical or technical terms) to
> even more workers who can be had for perhaps little more than investment in
> the variable capital which was required to hire a fewer number of workers
> pre crisis.
>
> The VCC will therefore be reduced and the rate of exploitation increased
> and profit rates and therewith accumulation restored.
>
> The effect that technical change (changes in the TCC) would have had on the
> value composition of capital (the OCC) is thus countervailed by crisis
> which allows the adjustment of value relations (VCC) conducive to further
> accumulation.
>
> But I have not answered your question of how to measure the TCC...
John sez:
Not exactly, no. In and of itself, the notion that a greater mass of machinery per worker means a greater TCC seems bizarre, given that there seems to be no "commensurable" way of measuring different types of "greater masses of machinery" -- this might have meant bigger integrated steel plants in the early 20th Century, today it might mean more and more lithographic etchings on a smaller and smaller silicon chip. But once you introduce the concept of isolating the independent effect of technical change on the VCC, versus the analytically separate effect of crisis-induced devaluation of constant and/or variable capital, then the notion of TCC makes more sense, although it seems to be wrongheaded to use physical metaphors of density, weight, mass, volume, etc. in this day and age (not to make too much out of "miniaturization" and "post-materiality" etc.).
John sez:
> >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) ...
Rakesh sez:
> 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 according
> 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 however 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.
I'm a bit dumbfounded by this and have a diss to write so I better give up the thread. But thanks for your insights.
John G.