is the ratio between the number of units of
socially necessary labor time embodied in the physical
capital stock owned by capitalists (as depreciated in proportion to the physical and "moral" wear and tear since its initial capitalization) and the number of units of socially necessary *productive* (of surplus value) labor time performed in a given accounting period (typically the time unit is the hour and the accounting period is the Gregorian calendar year).
It is thus the ratio between a stock and a flow.
The proper symbolic expression is C/(s+v).
Simplifying for the benefit of algebraically challenged
readers, Marx made (in v.I) the assumption that the
entire capital stock "turned over" (ie., depreciated 100%)
every year. This has led to much confusion among commentators.
Shane Mage
"When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even downright silly.
When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true." (N. Weiner)
I thought that the c/v was a nice simplification of the concept -- even if it made the "proof" more difficult. It brings out a stark dead/living labor distinction.On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:32:02AM -0600, Forstater, Mathew wrote:The organic composition of capital (occ) is usually defined as c/v. With this definition, it is easy to show that the value rate of profit, s/(c+v), depends on the rate of surplus value, s/v, and the occ, because s/(c+v) = (s/v)/[(c/v) + 1]. Why does Sweezy define the occ as c/(c+v) in The Theory of Capitalist Development? This then leads him to a more complicated proof to show that s/(c+v) = s' (1 - q), where s' is the rate of surplus value and q is the occ by his definition, = c/(c+v). Thanks, mat-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
