36 SOCIAL SCIENTIST composition of capital. The rate of profit will fall only if the latter increases faster than the former. But this according to Sweezy is not necessary. He correctly points out that constant capital in value terms does not rise as fast as a rise in the physical mass of machinery and raw materials. This is because of the fact that increased productivity of labour reduces the value of constant capital. Therefore ^actually the general impression of the rapidity of growth of the organic composition of capital seems to be considerably exaggerated." Sweezy concludes that the organic composition may not necessarily increase faster than the rate of surplus value. He therefore considers Marx's formulation of the law as mistaken and suggests an alternative formulation. Instead of basing himself on a progressive increase in the organic composition of capital, which he considers as ^but a link in a longer causal chain of influences operating on the rate of profits" he starts from rise in wages for an explanation of the law. He says, ^other things remaining equal, such a rise in wages leads to a reduction in the rate of surplus value, and this, in turn, expresses itself in a fall in the rate of profit."9 To counter the wage rise, the capitalist will introduce more machinery and in this process the organic composition of capital may rise. Hasty Conclusion Firstly Meek, in his above-quoted contribution has pointed out that though Marx does not consider the effect of increase in the rate of surplus value on the rate of profit, in the chapter ^Counteracting Influences" he has already considered the role of rising rate of surplus value on ^the law as such". One finds a number of passages to that effect in this chapter. Meek has quoted some of them. Secondly, all that Sweezy has shown is that the value of constant capital does not increase as fast as its physical mass. But from this he directly concludes that the organic composition of capital does not necessarily increase faster than the rate of surplus value. Such a conclusion is unwarranted. It must however be admitted that so far neither Marx nor any of his followers have rigorously argued that the organic composition of capital must in the long run increase faster than the rate of surplus value. It will be shown below why arguments advanced so far In this connection arc insufficient. But before that, a word about Sweezy's alternative formulation of Marx's law. It is ridiculous to base mainly on the rise in wages for an explanation of the falling rate of profit. Swcezy's ^other things remaining equal" is an unrealistitic assumption. Except for very rare periods, in capitalism we never get a reduction in the rate of surplus value because of the constant increase in productivity of labour, with which rise in wages cannot keep pace. The validity of Marx's formulation of the law depends upon the ability to demonstrate that the organic composition of capital must