Full text: Accumulation and Technology

let it seems to me she was not able to put matters right 
either, although she clearly realised that it all was 
a question of realisation of the surplus. 
The truth is that the department scheme in the form presented 
by Marx is not adequate for an analysis of extended reproduction. 
We get here a new variable, the net addition to capital, 
and that is at the same time a part of constant capital 
and a part of the surplus. ( Since Marx considered also 
an increase of "goods in process" , a part of the wages,too, 
is at the same time part of the surplus ). 
The ambiguity is resolved by considering successive periods, 
the accumulation being part of the surplus in one, and part 
of the constant capital in the next period. The trouble is, 
however, that by merely shifting a part of surplus within 
one department one neglects the interdependence between the 
two departments, because the surplus in each will depend on 
what happens in the other department. Marx's practice of 
working with given exploitation rates and given capital 
structure ( in addition also given ratio ofcapitalisation 
to surplus ) can not be kept up so that quaint proportions 
in at least one of the departments result. 
The reason for the trouble is that Marx does not heed the 
difference between surplus produced and surplus realised 
in this context - a distinction which is due to him and 
which represents a deep insight of lasting importance. 
He tries to impose given exploitation rates on a scheme 
without realising that by the nature of the circuit 
implied it is surplus realised which it reveals.

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.