(OPE-L) Rising organic composition (was: From Ian Wright on Weeks....)

["michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@xxxxxx>]

> >  At 15:17 20/05/2003 +0100,
> > Paul Cockroft wrote: 
> > > >
> > > My
> > > hypothesis, based mainly on the history of British capitalism, the 
> > > historical lead example is that once the latent reserve army of labour,
> > > both internal and external is exhausted, then over accumulation of 
> > > capital occurs with the following effects: 
> > >
> > > 1. Organic compositions tend to rise 
> > >
> > > 2. Demand for a static or falling labour pool inhibits constrains 
> > >     the production of surplus value 
> > >
> > > 3. Inherent tendancies towards deflation set in in consequence which
> > >     can only be masked by monetary and fiscal intervention
> > > by the 
> > >    state. 
> > >
> > > 4. As a consequence of factor 2, the social weight and influence of
> > >     the working class rises. 
> > >
> > > 5. A combination of 3 and 4 lead to an increasing pressure to use 
> > >     non-capitalist modes of accumulation - raising the
> > > issues of 
> > >     social control of accumulation as live political
> > > issues.

I responded:

        I'm not certain that I understand the reasoning here. If #1 is occurring, then it does so by recreating the reserve army. And the impulse to this is greater, the more the labour pool is static or falling. So, if workers are displaced, if the resulting weakness (all other things equal) of the working class means a rising rate of exploitation, how do you get to #4 ( not to mention for that matter #2)? The argument might hold without #1, but there was a section 2 to Vol. I, Ch25.

Paul answered on 22/05/2003 +0100 with respect to my comment re #1:


> This is a serious misconception.
>
> Organic compisition rises if the rate of accumulation of capital is
> greater than the rate of growth of the employed population of wage
> labourers. 
> This is compatible both with a shrinking employed population 
> or a rising employed population . 
>
> The rest of your argument depends on this point. 
>

        

It is
certainly possible that I have misconceived Marx's argument. So, let's go
through this step by step to see if this is true:

A. Paul's statement about the organic composition is true. Indeed, it is
true by definition.
B. But, WHY does the organic composition of capital rise?

        

1. Does it
have anything to do with the relative rates of accumulation and the
additions to the labour supply?

        

2. Does
the rise in the organic composition have anything to do with the
substitution of means of production for direct labour?
C. Does the substitution of means of production for direct labour
replenish the reserve army of labour?
D. Does the rise in the organic composition of capital have anything to
do with the rate of surplus value?

        

I think
these relations are necessary to specify before concluding, as Paul has,
that a rising organic composition leads to inadequate production of
surplus value and a strengthening of the working class.

        

in
solidarity,

        

 Michael
L

---------------------

Michael A. Lebowitz

Professor Emeritus

Economics Department

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6

Currently based in Cuba. Can be reached via:

Michael Lebowitz

c/o MEPLA

Calle 13 No. 504 ent. D y E, Vedado, La Habana, Cuba

Codigo Postal 10 4000

(537) 33 30 75 or 832  21 54

telefax (at night): (537) 33 30 75