[OPE-L:5172] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waste, value, and potential

From: paul bullock (paulbullock@ebms-ltd.in2home.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 15 2001 - 04:18:39 EST


You present my argument correctly, thanks,

Paul B

-----Original Message-----
From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU>
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Date: 08 March 2001 20:34
Subject: [OPE-L:5123] Re: Re: Re: Re: waste, value, and potential

>sorry for my previously garbled post, but Jerry still speaks to the point:
>so re 5122
>>My position is rather that if the surplus value is transferred
>>to the state, then it is unproductively consumed. I.e. instead of
>>using the s for productive investment in c & v it is spent instead
>>as revenue.
>Jerry, I don't think you are meeting Paul B's criticism head on. Why 
>can't the infrastructure built by the state be a public form of c? 
>Why can't its value be transferred through its use by labor to the 
>commodity output?
>This is how I understand Paul B's argument:  The capitalist class 
>merely transfers the sum of surplus value it cannot invest on its own 
>to the state which then either builds itself or orders the public 
>good of infrastructure (say the interstate highway system) the value 
>of which is then no less transferred to the commodity output than the 
>building costs which capitalists have privately absorbed are 
>recovered in the sale of commodity output.
>This is how I understand Paul B's point; it may be the argument 
>already made by Shane Mage.
>If they are right, then much less capital is wasted than we have thought.
>>  As for the wage-workers building the infrastructure it
>>depends fundamentally on whether they are employed by capital or the
>>state. It is important to remember that workers producing the same
>>use-value can be either productive or unproductive (of s) depending
>>on whether they are employed by capital to produce commodities.
>Yes, I agree with this. The question is whether the infrastructure 
>itself is a public form of constant capital.
>>The infrastructure from a social perspective (from the standpoint
>>of whether it contributes to an increase in social wealth) is
>>not "waste". But the question is whether it represents additional
>>value and wealth or wealth alone.
>If it is a public form of constant capital,  it does represent value 
>which is transferred to the commodity output.
>Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT