On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:25:56 +0100 Hugh Rodwell said:
>     ...
>>And it's the same with factories I guess. But I wonder whether, from a
>>Marxist angle, if this is all an absurdity: can capital _ever_ be truely
>The reason he called it fixed was that unlike labour-power it wasn't a
>factor in the variance between M' and M''. Fixed capital just passes on its
>value to the commodity it's applied to, it adds nothing new. So it's only
>fixed in terms of generating value.

Minor point, but you're thinking of constant capital here, not fixed
capital alone. Constant divides into fixed and circulating capital;
fixed capital is that which lasts for more than one production cycle,
and therefore passes on only part of its value each time.

Walter Daum

>Variable capital, on the other hand, exchanges value for the commodity
>labour-power, employs the labour-power and bingo out the other side comes
>more value than was put in, because the value of the labour-power employed
>was less than the value of the labour the labour-power employed was able to
>add to the commodities in question.
>C' with a given value becomes C'' with a greater value, and the solution to
>this magical equation, where something appears to come from nothing is in
>the exchange of labour-power with capital. The capital invested in
>labour-power actually buys the right to the labour produced by the
>labour-power, hence the value coming out is more than the value put in,
>hence the capital invested here appears to be variable.
>     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to