" Which is to say, an increase in the number of workers must also increase the mass of surplus value, assuming a constant profit share of value created. "
I am concerned with the phrase "constant profit share of value created". I think the value consumed in a cycle is C + V and the value created is C + V + S. So by "profit share of value created" I think you mean S / (C + V + S). Is that right?
Let's suppose that a rise in V (expansion of labor hours expended or of workers) so that V becomes xV where x is some multiplier greater than one.
To hold the "profit share of value created" constant means that:
S / (C + V + S) is equal to xS / (x(C' + S') + xV').
Can't a change of organic composition between those cycles both satisfy that equation and decrease the "mass of surplus value" where we understand that mass to be the amount of additional V that can be realized per unit of S?
I wonder if you are conflating the mass of surplus value with the total S?
1, V is not surplus value, V is variable capital, which is specifically wages. Also you're missing is that it's not just V that increases with an increase in labor hours or workers, but S, as both are composed of living labor. I had actually forgotten to exclude C though, so a more precise formulation would have us keeping profits constant as a share of living labor. I do not believe that fundamentally alters my conclusions, however.
Moreover, in order to keep s/(s+v) the same proportion we must maintain the same organic capital composition s/v, because to keep the proportion, you must multiply each variable by a constant, which looks like sx/(sx+vx) and entails sx/vx.
I'll rerun the numbers excluding C so we can get a Betty picture of the mass as of profit in terms of the labor budget.
Sorry for any confusion. I'm sure we are talking past one another. I am not confusing V and S.
A production process uses up some (C + V) and yields a newly produced (C + V + S). Let's suppose for the moment that the organic composition remains unchanged as we enter the next cycle. The organic composition (C / V) determines what is required to realize S.
Thus, if deltaV going into the next cycle is how much additional V there is in the next cycle, then we have:
C + V + S = (C + deltaC) + (V + deltaV) where by assumption C/V = (C + deltaC) / (V + deltaV). S is distributed in proportion with the organic composition to be realized.
If we understand the "mass" of surplus value to be the amount of new labor that S can command, that amount is deltaV, which is determined by the magnitude of S and the organic composition of capital. But contrary to our initial assumption, that organic composition CAN change between cycles.
You didn't say "holding the *net* profit share constant", which would have meant, I think, holding the rate of profit constant (S / (C + V)) and that's why I asked if you meant holding constant the share of gross value created, namely (S / (C + V + S)). The share of gross value created at least roughly resembles the orthodox concept of "capital share of GDP".
If (S / (C + V + S)) is held constant, but the organic composition changes, then I think it is still possible for the mass of S to fall -- namely for (V + deltaV)/S to fall. But that would contradict your assertion that:
" Which is to say, an increase in the number of workers must also increase the mass of surplus value, assuming a constant profit share of value created. "
I noticed the *possible* problem because your surmise of Marx ("Which is to say...") relies on the narrow premises laid out at the very start of Chapter 11 and therefore would not obviously apply to capital in a general way.
"A production process uses up some (C + V) and yields a newly produced (C + V + S)."
A production process also uses S to create the new C+V+S, as the new C must be taken from the previous S. V is ONLY the cost of the reproducing the working class. While C is what is used up, as its value is directly transferred to the new total value, V is not used up to create C+V+S, because V is only the cost. What actually gets used up is labor power, which creates all the value associated with living labor. Which is to say, what gets used up is V+S, the actual labor used in production which reproduces BOTH the working and capitalist class. As I previously demonstrated, in order for the proportion of S/(C+V+S) to stay constant, OCC must also stay constant. S/=V+DeltaV.
You wrote: " V is ONLY the cost of the reproducing the working class. While C is what is used up, as its value is directly transferred to the new total value, V is not used up to create C+V+S, because V is only the cost. "
I think you have some mix-up of use value and exchange value there. Production is an *entropic process* by which I mean that it destroys use values.
For a given cycle of production to repeat, the constant capital consumed must be replaced with use values of the same type, but newly produced. For the next day's work, the baker has to obtain newly produced flour, for example.
Our worker arrives to work rested and fed and leaves tired and hungry. The labor power has to be replaced with newly fed, newly rested labor power. The baker's sack of flour starts full, ends empty, and must be replaced with a new sack.
What gets "used up" is the use values associated with (c + v). What is merely transformed into a new form is the exchange value of (c + v). The yarn produced has value (c + v + s) or equivalently ((c + delta-c) + (v + delta-v)) but the worn out spindle must be replaced with a new spindle, the used up stock of cotton replaced with new cotton. Overall, both constant and variable capital require constant self-reproduction as a condition of surplus production.
My main point in the whole thread is simply that surplus s can't be realized as "s divided by the price of labor" but must be realized as a mix of constant and variable capital in a ratio determined by the organic composition of capital. Changes in that composition most definitely can result in a loss of the "mass of surplus value" (which "mass" I think you correctly understand as the amount of labor power that surplus can command).
Let us be clear here. There are use values used up in consumption, and use values used up in production. But S, V and C are not measured in use values, but exchange values. The use value of V in consumption reproduces the working class, but it's use value in production, labor power, creates both V and S. S is not equal deltaC+deltaV, as this implies what is being grown is C and V, and not S. When you increase the length of the working day, you're not increasing V unless you're paying workers more, since, recall, V is measured in dollars first, it is the wage bill, and C is the amount of constant capital used up in production, the depreciation expense. It makes no sense to say S equals an increase in the wage bill and depreciation. S, C and V are all inherently exchange values because it's only as exchange values that we can apply arithmetic to them consistently and without the need for elaborate conversions that I discuss in the original blog.
"Changes in that composition most definitely can result in a loss of the "mass of surplus value" "
Yes, they can, but as I mention, we're holding that constant for now. If we did want to change the OCC, or also the rate of surplus value (which is the reciprocal of the OCC), it would have to change orders of magnitude to compensate for an increase in the workforce. The mass of profit is total surplus (S), the equation of which is S = (S/(S+C+V)*(S+C+V)), or if we'd like to just focus on living labor, (S/(S+V))*(S+V), either way it simplifies to S=S. But, to get to real values, we can substitute total value for total hours worked. Thus, S=(S/(S+V))*(N*H) where N is total number of workers and H is average hours worked per worker. If you decide to change S/V, and thus also S/(S+V) to decrease the mass of profit even though N is increasing, you'd have to divide it by the same factor you're multiplying N by. And that just isn't reasonable. For comparison, since 1980, S/(S+V) has risen by 23%, and population has risen by 58%. In order for the mass of profit to have fallen, S/(S+V) would have had to fall more than 58% in that same time.
> ". But S, V and C are not measured in use values, but exchange values"
You mean prices per unit of various kinds of use value?
I think we are at an impasse if we can't agree that marxian Value is part of the dual nature of a commodity in a society in which the capitalist mode prevails.
I have a question for clarification. You wrote:
" Which is to say, an increase in the number of workers must also increase the mass of surplus value, assuming a constant profit share of value created. "
I am concerned with the phrase "constant profit share of value created". I think the value consumed in a cycle is C + V and the value created is C + V + S. So by "profit share of value created" I think you mean S / (C + V + S). Is that right?
Let's suppose that a rise in V (expansion of labor hours expended or of workers) so that V becomes xV where x is some multiplier greater than one.
To hold the "profit share of value created" constant means that:
S / (C + V + S) is equal to xS / (x(C' + S') + xV').
Can't a change of organic composition between those cycles both satisfy that equation and decrease the "mass of surplus value" where we understand that mass to be the amount of additional V that can be realized per unit of S?
I wonder if you are conflating the mass of surplus value with the total S?
1, V is not surplus value, V is variable capital, which is specifically wages. Also you're missing is that it's not just V that increases with an increase in labor hours or workers, but S, as both are composed of living labor. I had actually forgotten to exclude C though, so a more precise formulation would have us keeping profits constant as a share of living labor. I do not believe that fundamentally alters my conclusions, however.
Moreover, in order to keep s/(s+v) the same proportion we must maintain the same organic capital composition s/v, because to keep the proportion, you must multiply each variable by a constant, which looks like sx/(sx+vx) and entails sx/vx.
I'll rerun the numbers excluding C so we can get a Betty picture of the mass as of profit in terms of the labor budget.
Thanks.
Sorry for any confusion. I'm sure we are talking past one another. I am not confusing V and S.
A production process uses up some (C + V) and yields a newly produced (C + V + S). Let's suppose for the moment that the organic composition remains unchanged as we enter the next cycle. The organic composition (C / V) determines what is required to realize S.
Thus, if deltaV going into the next cycle is how much additional V there is in the next cycle, then we have:
C + V + S = (C + deltaC) + (V + deltaV) where by assumption C/V = (C + deltaC) / (V + deltaV). S is distributed in proportion with the organic composition to be realized.
If we understand the "mass" of surplus value to be the amount of new labor that S can command, that amount is deltaV, which is determined by the magnitude of S and the organic composition of capital. But contrary to our initial assumption, that organic composition CAN change between cycles.
You didn't say "holding the *net* profit share constant", which would have meant, I think, holding the rate of profit constant (S / (C + V)) and that's why I asked if you meant holding constant the share of gross value created, namely (S / (C + V + S)). The share of gross value created at least roughly resembles the orthodox concept of "capital share of GDP".
If (S / (C + V + S)) is held constant, but the organic composition changes, then I think it is still possible for the mass of S to fall -- namely for (V + deltaV)/S to fall. But that would contradict your assertion that:
" Which is to say, an increase in the number of workers must also increase the mass of surplus value, assuming a constant profit share of value created. "
I noticed the *possible* problem because your surmise of Marx ("Which is to say...") relies on the narrow premises laid out at the very start of Chapter 11 and therefore would not obviously apply to capital in a general way.
"A production process uses up some (C + V) and yields a newly produced (C + V + S)."
A production process also uses S to create the new C+V+S, as the new C must be taken from the previous S. V is ONLY the cost of the reproducing the working class. While C is what is used up, as its value is directly transferred to the new total value, V is not used up to create C+V+S, because V is only the cost. What actually gets used up is labor power, which creates all the value associated with living labor. Which is to say, what gets used up is V+S, the actual labor used in production which reproduces BOTH the working and capitalist class. As I previously demonstrated, in order for the proportion of S/(C+V+S) to stay constant, OCC must also stay constant. S/=V+DeltaV.
You wrote: " V is ONLY the cost of the reproducing the working class. While C is what is used up, as its value is directly transferred to the new total value, V is not used up to create C+V+S, because V is only the cost. "
I think you have some mix-up of use value and exchange value there. Production is an *entropic process* by which I mean that it destroys use values.
For a given cycle of production to repeat, the constant capital consumed must be replaced with use values of the same type, but newly produced. For the next day's work, the baker has to obtain newly produced flour, for example.
Our worker arrives to work rested and fed and leaves tired and hungry. The labor power has to be replaced with newly fed, newly rested labor power. The baker's sack of flour starts full, ends empty, and must be replaced with a new sack.
What gets "used up" is the use values associated with (c + v). What is merely transformed into a new form is the exchange value of (c + v). The yarn produced has value (c + v + s) or equivalently ((c + delta-c) + (v + delta-v)) but the worn out spindle must be replaced with a new spindle, the used up stock of cotton replaced with new cotton. Overall, both constant and variable capital require constant self-reproduction as a condition of surplus production.
My main point in the whole thread is simply that surplus s can't be realized as "s divided by the price of labor" but must be realized as a mix of constant and variable capital in a ratio determined by the organic composition of capital. Changes in that composition most definitely can result in a loss of the "mass of surplus value" (which "mass" I think you correctly understand as the amount of labor power that surplus can command).
Let us be clear here. There are use values used up in consumption, and use values used up in production. But S, V and C are not measured in use values, but exchange values. The use value of V in consumption reproduces the working class, but it's use value in production, labor power, creates both V and S. S is not equal deltaC+deltaV, as this implies what is being grown is C and V, and not S. When you increase the length of the working day, you're not increasing V unless you're paying workers more, since, recall, V is measured in dollars first, it is the wage bill, and C is the amount of constant capital used up in production, the depreciation expense. It makes no sense to say S equals an increase in the wage bill and depreciation. S, C and V are all inherently exchange values because it's only as exchange values that we can apply arithmetic to them consistently and without the need for elaborate conversions that I discuss in the original blog.
"Changes in that composition most definitely can result in a loss of the "mass of surplus value" "
Yes, they can, but as I mention, we're holding that constant for now. If we did want to change the OCC, or also the rate of surplus value (which is the reciprocal of the OCC), it would have to change orders of magnitude to compensate for an increase in the workforce. The mass of profit is total surplus (S), the equation of which is S = (S/(S+C+V)*(S+C+V)), or if we'd like to just focus on living labor, (S/(S+V))*(S+V), either way it simplifies to S=S. But, to get to real values, we can substitute total value for total hours worked. Thus, S=(S/(S+V))*(N*H) where N is total number of workers and H is average hours worked per worker. If you decide to change S/V, and thus also S/(S+V) to decrease the mass of profit even though N is increasing, you'd have to divide it by the same factor you're multiplying N by. And that just isn't reasonable. For comparison, since 1980, S/(S+V) has risen by 23%, and population has risen by 58%. In order for the mass of profit to have fallen, S/(S+V) would have had to fall more than 58% in that same time.
> ". But S, V and C are not measured in use values, but exchange values"
You mean prices per unit of various kinds of use value?
I think we are at an impasse if we can't agree that marxian Value is part of the dual nature of a commodity in a society in which the capitalist mode prevails.