From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Sat Jan 19 2008 - 18:38:51 EST
Jerry you say: " As I have suggested previously, if there is growth in the service sector, the surplus-value created in that sector can be used to stimulate employment and output in other parts of that economy (or abroad), including agriculture and industry." Shades of Mandeville! The issue is not 'stimulating employment', since unproductive employment of servants does that, it is material accumulation and the development of the productive forces. Adam Smith understood this, Stalin understood it, and the Rupe people follow this insight here. Their contrast between India and China is apposite. An enconomy can only grow rapidly if, at least for a period, the basic sector expands rapidly ( von - Neumann ray etc). China is doing this, with approx 50% of value added being reinvested, from their data India seems not to be doing so, (http://rupe-india.org/36/depressed.html). This seems to justify their attack on the parasitic growth of the service sector. Paul Cockshott Dept of Computing Science University of Glasgow +44 141 330 3125 www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Jerry Levy Sent: Sat 19/01/2008 6:03 PM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] "parasitism" of the service sector? > See http://rupe-india.org/36/parasitism.html Hi Dave Z: There is a clear productivist bias to the rupe statement of the issue. The relative growth of the service sector of an individual capitalist economy - even that of a (so-called) "backward economy" - does not *necessarily* hinder growth and accumulation within that economy. As I have suggested previously, if there is growth in the service sector, the surplus-value created in that sector can be used to stimulate employment and output in other parts of that economy (or abroad), including agriculture and industry. The 'rupe' position is also self-contradictory if it's claimed that there is variable capital in and surplus value created in the service sector: how can workers be both productive of surplus-value _and_ "parasitic"? The argument made about how the services sector is largely "parasitic" is off-base because it erroneously suggests a one-way relationship between the sectors. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST