Mathew, > This has nothing to do with what is happening to (S/V), because (V + S = L). > In fact, Marx thought that > the LFTRP was associated with a rising (S/V).
Let me just add a couple of notes on this. Saying that "this [r's ceiling dropping because L/C falls -- i.e. C/L goes up] has nothing to do with" the rate of exploitation is misleading. You can decompose C/L intro three factors: C/L = (C/V) (V/S) (S/L) Or: C/L = h (1/u) (S/L) Again, h is the capital composition and u is the rate of exploitation. Now, looking at things this way, the path of C/L has *everything to do* with h, u, and (S/L) the share of surplus value in the value of net output -- a measure of the economic and political strength of workers. Here, you (or Anwar) say(s) that u can go up and L/C will still fall. Well, yes, but it will get harder. If u goes up, then for L/C to fall (for C/L to go up), you need h or S/L (or both) to leap enough to overwhelm the increase in u. That is, the "mechanization" of production has to be expanded even further and/or the wage share shrunk even further. I already mentioned the problem with h going up -- namely that C gets de-valorized, routinely during normal times and suddenly during crises. I can also think of a hard limit to shrinking the wage share: the workers' resistance. (And, again, we're assuming away credit or foreign trade, which further widen r's band of variation.) So, is *this* the breakdown of capitalism a la Grossman? I thought Grossman meant that there was some *economic* mechanism that -- at some point -- made it impossible for the system to go on, a mechanism triggered by an expanding h or an inexorably falling r. Is that it or I missed the point in Grossman's book? As an approach in the study of capitalism, *that* goes nowhere. In my understanding, the effective breakdown of capitalism (a la Marx) is not about some automatic reduction in the economic degrees of freedom of the system, but about the interaction between economic conditions and the evolution of the working class -- the evolution of their individual and collective needs, self-education, organization, and political involvement. Not so long ago, I posted here a note summarizing a synthesis -- in fact, a very apt compilation by David Laibman -- of ways in which capitalist societies can get increasingly disrupted and constrained by its inherent economic contradictions in the context of workers who are not mere passive appendices of the system. However, there's no automatic breakdown there. The full synthesis can be found in the second section of David's recent book, Deep History. I recommend it. Frankly, I find David's approach to be much more fruitful (and, for those who care about that, more Marxist) than, say, Grossman's. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
