Re: [OPE-L] The lump of surplus value fallacy and the Moseley paradox

From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2008 - 08:54:36 EST

on 2008-01-12 14:17 Philip Dunn wrote:
> How does it become evident? Why are the financial services, advertising
> and armament industries deemed to be parasitic on surplus value created
> elsewhere? Of course, it is possible arbitrarily to stipulate this. Is
> the ground for the distinction a feeling of distaste for these
> industries?

It is certainly not a moral distinction. Sectors that produced luxuries
such as automobiles were initially unproductive, but that changed during
the 20th century.

I urge you to read the article, to get the full argument. However, using
the simple example of reproduction schemes I hope you can see that it is

Let Department I produce the means of production, Department II produce
workers' consumption and Department III produce all the rest. Let P, W
and M denote profits, wages and material costs of production
respectively. Then for

    Department III   |   Total profits
    M3 + W3 + P3 <= P1 + P2 + P3

Or, M3 + W3 <= P1 + P2. Production in Department III cannot take place
unless the flow of profits from the other Departments are directed to it
instead of accumulation.

//Dave Z

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST