Gil's message to the list is forwarded below (it only made it to me on first attempt - I'm afraid the 'reply' email option doesn't reply to the list for my emails). ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:16:49 -0500 To: Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk From: Gil Skillman <gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu> Subject: On "capital scarcity" (reply to Andrew B.) Andrew B. writes: >'Scaricity' is certainly the wrong term. Probably 'capital' too. I recognize that "capital scarcity" does not have very Marxian overtones, but it has the advantage of briefly capsulizing conditions that Marx affirmed in V. I as necessary for the existence of surplus value. To anticipate, Marx argues that differential class control of the means of production in the sense described by Andrew below is necessary for capital to be non-abundant in the sense Andrew suggests. In other work I preempt objections of the sort you raise, Andrew, by invoking the slightly more informative but unwieldy term "differential ownership of scarce productive assets" (DOSPA). I'm happy to entertain emendations on either phrase. >What is necessary is that the means of production not in the >contol of one class, such that the class is forced to do wage labour >(also necessary is that this class *possesses* their labour-power >such that they can sell it). This has nothing to do with 'scarcity' of >the means of production, these means could be abundant (and are >now, in fact) - it's just that they are not in control of a class (this is >what Julian is getting at I think). Three comments: first, according to Marx's argument in V. I, Ch. 33, differential class ownership does indeed have *something* to do with capital "scarcity" in the sense of non-abundance, since Marx says that propertied workers would accumulate to the degree necessary to eliminate their dependence on external capital: "So long, therefore, as the worker can accumulate for himself--and this he can do so long as he remains in possession of his means of production--capitalist accumulation and the capitalist mode of production are impossible." [p. 933 Penguin] Second, even if we distinguish differential class ownership as a determining factor of exploitation--and I agree with Andrew that this is appropriate--it remains the case that productive wealth has to be *scarce* in the sense I've defined it *as well as* unequally owned, since otherwise excessive accumulation would drive the rate of surplus value to zero. Thus, in the sense required for the argument, the means of production are not in fact "abundant" now, since (for example) the interest rate on corporate bonds is not zero. Third, I think there is a non sequitur in Andrew's characterization. Differential class ownership of the means of production, in the sense invoked by Marx in Ch. 6 of Vol. I, does not of itself imply that the unpropertied class is "forced to do wage labour", since they could alternatively gain access to the means of production by financing the purchase of means of production or leasing constant capital goods. An additional argument, found nowhere in Vol. I, Part 2, and having nothing to do with the value-theoretic considerations Marx addresses there, is required to derive the condition of wage labour from the fact of a class "free in the double sense." This is part of the point of my Ch. 5 critique. >Gil, how do you define 'capital'? Not by 'means of production' I >hope. Capital is self-expanding value taking the form once of >money once of commodities. I define capital pretty much as you do, Andrew, following Marx. Marx of course defines capital as a "social relation between persons which is mediated through things." This relation is reflected in the differential roles played by money and commodities in the circuit of capital M--C--M' as opposed to the circuit of commodity exchange C--M--C. But as a shorthand, Marx also refers to the money and/or commodities taking part in this social relation as "capital", as seen in his terms *constant and variable capital.* But since they only take on this connotation within the social relation that yields surplus value, "capital" is certainly not simply "means of production." Subsistence peasants have means of production but no "capital," for example. One attribute of constant capital is that, in its "real" or commodity manifestation, it represents a portion of current-period product that is not used for final consumption in that period. This portion of current-period product is the magnitude that might or might not be "scarce" in the sense I defined it in an earlier post. Suppose, for example, that workers consume all of their income and capitalists use all of theirs for accumulation, and that the implied rate of capital accumulation is not so large as to yield a zero rate of surplus value. Then in my sense of the phrase, capital is scarce. >There is never 'enough' capital >because it is measured by a *quantity* with no limit. One can always make more. Well, yes, *eventually*, but that doesn't impinge on the possibility of current-period scarcity in the sense I've described above. This relates to what I consider one of Marx's key theoretical contributions: showing how, despite the possibility, nay the systemic necessity, of capital accumulation, and without the Malthusian adjustment invoked by Ricardo and (in weaker form by) Smith, capital might persistently remain scarce in the sense defined. Gil ------- End of forwarded message -------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST