[OPE-L:5173] Re: Re: Re: waste, value, and potential

From: paul bullock (paulbullock@ebms-ltd.in2home.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 15 2001 - 04:16:30 EST


Yes, case by case indeed, but it seems pretty evident that the same road can
be used as part of the reproduction process generally and/or for private
(revenue) final - non capitalistic -  use, as i said before. Neverthless,
even this argument cannot evade the fact that surplus labour is extorted in
the building of roads, railways etc  and I see this labour process as all
productive.... otherwise we will be denying that all final consumption goods
production not aimed at reproducing constant or variable capital is
unproductive ( eg luxury good production) and this is clearly  contrary to

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 19:18
Subject: [OPE-L:5121] Re: Re: waste, value, and potential

>Well, we've been having the debate whether surplus value spent by the
>state is wasted, or serves as capital. Paul B has made the argument
>that state spending can be a public form of constant capital. Jerry
>has said that because the infrastructure built for the state that
>will not take the commodity form the surplus value incurred in its
>construction have been wasted. Is this simply a version of Shane Mage
>vs.. Shaikh/Tonak?
>Seemingly like Mage, Paul B has said however that those costs are
>recovered like building costs in the realization of the commodity
>output. So state spending need not constitute the destruction or
>waste of capital. I have noted that much state spending in Japan
>today however cannot be reasonably taken to contribute to the
>realization of commodity capital. I don't think Paul B would take
>Keynes' famous example of treasury bill burying to be a case of a
>public form of constant capital. And he has argued that whether state
>spending forms a (public) part of constant capital or the waste or
>pulverization of surplus value has to be decided on case by case
>Yours, Rakesh

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