Rakesh, My comments below: : Paul -----Original Message----- From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU> To: o pe-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: 19 February 2001 03:30 Subject: [OPE-L:4956] Re: Re: Re: arms, roads and fictitious capital >re 4952 > >Hi Paul B, > >Here are four questions over which we seem to differ.(I'M NOT SURE THAT DIFFER IS THE WORD SINCE YOU TOUCH UPON SEVERAL MATTERS WHERE NO CLEAR EXCHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE) > >1. should production carried out by private contractors for the state >be classified as Dept IIA or Dept III?(? PLEASE SEE VOLII CAP CH20 .SECTION 4 FOR DEFINITION OF DEPTS IIA AND IIB) IF THE STATE IS EMPLOYING WORKERS DIRECTLY TO PROVIDE SERVICES OR PRODUCTS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION - NOT VIA THE MARKET - THEN THIS IS THE EXCHANGE OF LABOUR AGAINST REVENUE, AND UNPRODUCTIVE FOR CAPITAL. PRIVATE CONTRACTORS PRODUCING MEANS OF PRODUCTION UPON RECEIVING STATE ORDERS, WHO THUS SELL THEIR PRODUCT TO THE STATE THROUGH THE MARKET - BIDDING AGAINST OTHER PRODUCERS FOR THE CONTRACT - , ARE PART OF DEPT I. IF ON THE OTHER HAND THE CONTRACTORS ARE PRODUCING MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE, OR LUXURY GOODS - INCLUDING WEAPONS OF WAR HERE - ARE TO BE FOUND IN DEPTS IIA AND IIB RESPECTIVELY. > >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? I ANSWER THIS ABOVE, IN PART. IN ADDITION THE WORKERS SPEND THEIR OWN WAGES AS REVENUE (THEY ARE NOT CAPITALISTS) > >You say it's linked to something but specify no further; I say >surplus value which is spent but does not serve as capital,(THIS IS TRUE) 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). I DO NOT KNOW OF FRED AND MURRAY'S ARGUMENT. I SHALL ASK FRED - WHO SHOWS HIMSELF TO BE A MOST PATIENT FELLOW - The value of highways, airports, >bridges, or seaports is NOT preserved in their use and transferred gratis by labor to commodity output. WHY NOT? I SUPPOSE YOU WOULD ACCEPT THAT THIS WOULD BE THE CASE WHERE PRIVATE TURNPIKES OPERATE? WHY NOT WHERE THE STATE OPERATE THE TURNPIKE? IS A MARKET NOT IN SOME SENSE OPERATING? SIMPLY BECAUSE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE VALUE OF THE ROADS RECONVERTS ITSELF INTO MONEY ( ROAD TAXES) IS ARRANGED DIFFERENTLY , THE STATE NOW HAS TO REPRODUCE THOSE ROADS (THE CONSTANT CAPITAL) OR THIER MEMBERS - THE CAPITALISTS - WILL TURF THEM OUT. THE STALLED UK EXPERIMENT IN CREATING PRIVATE TOLL SUPER HIGHWAYS ALONG THE SIDE OF EXISTING STATE ROADS ONLY EMPHASISES THE PRESENT ARRANGEMENT AS MORE RATIONAL FROM A CLASS STANDPOINT, AND HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DEMANDS FOR INCREASED SPENDING ON ROADS AND RAIL BY THE STATE. DEMAND IS MOVING TO RAIL AGAIN, THE STATE FOLLOWS THE NEEDS OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE, DOING COLLECTIVELY WHAT CANNOT BE DONE PRIVATELY. A TRUCK DRIVEN FROM A TO B VIA A STATE ARRANGED ROAD, WHOSE OWNER PAYS BY TOLL OR OTHER TAX, WEARS OUT THE ROAD IN THE PROCESS AND THE COMMODITIES HE TRANSPORTS BENEFIT FROM THE SPATIAL REAARANGEMENTS AFFORDED, SO CARRYING IN THEM PART OF THE DEAD LABOUR BUILT INTO THE ROAD ITSELF. THIS IS WHY THE TOLL/TAX IS PAID! THE REPRODUCTION OF THE ROAD NOW REQUIRES THAT THOSE TOLLS AND TAXES ARE ONCE AGAIN TRANSFORMED INTO UP-TO-DATE ROADS, THAT THE CONSTANT CAPITAL IS REPRODUCED IN THIS PRACTICAL FORM FROM THE MONEY FORM MEDIATED THROUGH THE STATE. SUCH CONSTANT CAPITAL WILL BE EXPANDED AS NEEDS REQUIRE AS CAPITAL OVERALL EXPANDS. >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.(WHY SHOULD MARXIST'S ADVISE THE BOURGEOISIE?) > >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 (????? WHERE?)are >implicitly defining capital as exactly such an asset and thereby >emptying the term capital of its historical and social meaning. >?( I HAVE SAID NOTHING ABOUT THIS. WHY MAKE SUCH SILLY ASSERTIONS.?...IT IS CLEAR TO MANY THAT I HAVE STRESSED THE CONCEPT OF FICTITIOUS CAPITAL PUBLICLY CONSISTENTLY SINCE 1975 IN ORDER TO TRACE THROUGH THE ACTUAL CONVERSION PROCESSES OF CAPITAL, AND TO UNDERSTAND FINANCIAL MARKETS) >Yours, Rakesh > Best wishes PAUL >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST