re 4952 Hi Paul B, Here are four questions over which we seem to differ. 1. should production carried out by private contractors for the state be classified as Dept IIA or Dept III? Following Mario Cogy (International Journal of Political Economy 17, 2), I would answer the latter. But won't go over his argument or type out parts of it yet. 2. how does Marx define revenue? You say it's linked to something but specify no further; I say surplus value which is spent but does not serve as capital, that is in the accumulation of constant and variable capital. Consumption of dept III products thus constitutes a destruction of capital, no matter the profits made by dept III capitalists themselves and the higher level of material production to which their activity contributes. This is Cogoy's argument (I believe), and we could return to it. 3. roads built by private contractors for the state are part of constant capital I say no (Fred and Murray EG Smith had an argument about this earlier, and I agreed with Fred). The value of highways, airports, bridges, or seaports is NOT preserved in their use and transferred gratis by labor to commodity output. Of course we will have to argue this out. But from my perspective, this is why it would make no sense for Marxists to have argued with Robert Eisner for the inclusion of government investment (distinct from other government spending) as an expenditure category to the national income and product accounts. Or it would only make sense to include as government investment those govt owned enterprises in which wage labor is employed to produce commodities for the market. 4. are govt securities a form of fictitious capital? Following Duncan, I say yes. It's fetishistic to assume that any asset which allows a revenue stream is capital. In fact you are implicitly defining capital as exactly such an asset and thereby emptying the term capital of its historical and social meaning. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST