[OPE-L:3372] Re: accumulation of capital revisited

Gerald Lev (glevy@pratt.edu)
Sat, 12 Oct 1996 10:20:54 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

I have replied off-list to Andrew K's comments on moderation in
[OPE-L:3371]. Here I will address the substantive issues that he
raised regarding the subject line for this thread -- the accumulation of
capital (which I also sent to Andrew off-list).

> Jerry takes one symbol and 16 words from my long post (ope-l 3368),
> which documented his double standard: "R (the cost of repressing the
> working class, in the direct process of production and outside it)"

Everything that was written afterwards regarding the alleged "double
standard" flowed from your definition of R.

> First, what does "this stage" mean?

This stage of the discussion -- and presentation in Marx re accumulation,
technical change, the LTGRPD, etc..

> The state has certainly been analyzed before.

Not in a systematic way in _Capital_.

> Second, firms directly pay at least some of the cost of repressing
> the working class --- they hire, train, and pay foremen, give bribes to
> spies, spend money to fight the certification of unions and to decertify
> unions, pay for cameras and stuff to monitor the workers, pay for time
> clocks, hire "Pinkertons," etc., etc. They would directly pay for more
> if the State
> didn't, because R is absolutely necessary for capitalist production. And who
> ultimately bears the *part* of repression costs that the State pays directly
> is a separate issue having nothing to do with Jerry's double standard.

Certainly firms pay some of the costs of repression. These costs are
subtracted from past s -- a category which has already been developed by
Marx. In that sense, to not explicitly include R is different from
negating the existence of a category, such as v, which has already been
developed and is crucial for the subject matter in question --
accumulation and the general r.

In Solidarity,