Re: [OPE-L] "Levels of abstraction"

From: Jerry Levy (jerry_levy@VERIZON.NET)
Date: Sat Feb 02 2008 - 09:48:45 EST

> The crucial point is the asymmetry here: The existence of Dept. I > and Dept. II does not depend on the surplus value spent in
> Dept.III whereas it ceases to exist the moment Depts. I and II
> direct the flow of surplus value away from it. This mirrors the
> underlying relation in the material reproduction of society.

Hi Dave Z:

The existence and reproduction under capitalism of Departments I and II depends on the reproduction of the capital-wage labour relation - a relation  that requires the individual consumption of some commodities by capitalists.

[Not quite a digression:  to the extent that we're talking about, in part, concerns the individual consumption of commodities by
capitalists, I wonder if this discussion can be related to what Ian W has written on the "real cost accounting" issue in the TP? Also, since we're talking about "levels of abstraction" it's also worthwhile to note the "character mask" assumption in VI and the imperative to relax that assumption as one moves to more concrete levels of abstraction.]

> I agree that money is a necessary requirement for capitalism. But
> one should not confuse how activities are financed with money and
> how they are supported by labour. For instance, the surplus
> product is never liquid; it is a collection of goods and services
> produced over a given period.

Surplus _value_ is "liquid", though.  Surplus _value_ is not just a "collection of goods and services produced over a given period".

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 00:00:03 EST