Re: [OPE] absinence theory

From: Dave Zachariah <>
Date: Mon Oct 25 2010 - 08:59:04 EDT

On 25 October 2010 14:21, GERALD LEVY <> wrote:

> The distinction between productive and unproductive labor concerns what
> type of
> labor _produces_ surplus-value. What is done with surplus-value is another
> question:
> it can be productively or unproductively _consumed_. If capitalists consume
> their
> profit by using it to purchase more c + v, it is productively consumed. If
> they use
> it for other purposes, it has not been.
I think this reasoning remains trapped in the illusions of monetary
relations. It occurs precisely because the standpoint is a section of
individual agents and not relations of social reproduction. As Paul showed,
"what is done with surplus-value" is *not* another question. The production
of surplus-value and the unproductive surplus-value in Dept. III are linked
by the relations of social reproduction. The size of c3 + v3 is not set by
the consumption of its capitalists but the unproductive consumption u*(s1 +
s2) by the capitalists in the other departments.

//Dave Z

ope mailing list
Received on Mon Oct 25 09:00:27 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EDT