Two minor points to Jim Devine's post on FROP:
Marx makes several good points in vol. I suggesting that qc/lp
should rise over time (though it's not a complete argument).
qc/lp might be called the "the organic composition of capital"
(OCC) following Fine and Harris (REREADING CAPITAL, 1979, P. 59),
directly reflecting the technical composition of capital, which
can't be measured directly.
__________________________
To call qc/lp the OCC would be highly confusing. Because it is literally the
technical composition of capital. The problem with the concept of "technical
composition of capital" is of course the problem of aggregation. However, if we
assume that the transfer of value from the *fixed capital* to the output is
negligible, then one could say that most of the value of constant capital that
is transfered to the commodity comes from the raw materials. In this case, an
increase in productivity must mean that the same amount of labor converts more
raw material, and so there must be a rise in the technical composition of
capital. Here technical composition can be calculated because raw material must
remain the same if we are producing the same commodity. Now, as long as this
rise in the technical composition (which can be measured only by ignoring
machines) reflects a rise in the value composition as well, then Marx calls it
the organic composition of capital.
_______________________________
VCC = vc*OCC/vlp
Now,
vlp = average real wage/labor productivity in wage-good industry
= rw/z2.
_______________________________
This, I don't think, is strictly correct. A rise in the productivity in capital
good sector should also reduce the value of labor-power, since constant capital
plays a part in determining the value of wage-goods. So the rest of the
mathematics would need to be modified.
Cheers, ajit sinha
