> >If there is a "law of the tendency of surplus is rise" (as Foster puts
> >it), there would be always be avenues for profitable investment. Why
>there
> >is any overaccumulation of capital, if _the rate of profit is not
> >falling_ and the rate of surplus is rising?
> Net surplus also rises
> absolutely, but it tends to fall relative to the total capital stock--
> both in "real" and (even more) in value terms.
I agree. My question was exactly about the claim that Marx's "law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall" was no longer directly applicable to the monopoly capitalist economy and and had to be replaced by a "law of the tendency of surplus to rise" etc. There is further question whether one can show a tendency for increasing organic composition of capital at a faster rate, so that the rate of profit declines despite rising rate of surplus value.
Ulhas