Re: [OPE-L] productive and unproductive labour and forms of surplus value

From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2008 - 15:14:48 EST

> Jerry, I think you need to put the argument in some formalism to make it> transparent. Let's use the three department model with monetary variables.
Hi Dave:
As I have already indicated, I don't agree that there should be a Dept III for 
capitalist consumption  rather than it simply being part of Dept II.  But, 
for the sake of discussion, let's assume that there is.
> The total surplus value created in Dept. I and II is spent on investment> and unproductive expenditure on commodities produced in Dept. III.> Therefore, whatever surplus value earned in Dept. III are deductions of> the surplus value from Dept. I and II.
No.  You are assuming away the issue.  Just like Deptartments I
and II, Department III requires C + V for production and reproduction.
The S produced in _any_ of the 3 Departments can be invested in the
reproduction  of commodities in _any_ of the 3 departments.  
For Department III to have the effect you assert, there can't be
V invested in that department and the S produced in Department 
III can't be used for investment in Departments I and II.  
Hi Jurriaan:
Levels of abstraction  in this case concern:
- the process of capitalist production  taken by itself;
- the process of capitalist circulation taken by itself;
- capitalist production as a whole in abstraction from the state:
- the unity of capitalist production as a whole and the state.
Hence, it is appropriate to consider the role of  U first 
within the conttext of capital in general before going on  
to conceive of U at the level of abstraction  where the 
state is taken into account.  It's not a matter of 2+2, 
it's a matter of 1 then 2 then 3 then ....
In solidarity, Jerry

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