>Re Rakesh's [OPE-L:5123]: > > >> Why >> can't the infrastructure built by the state be a public form >> of c? > >I don't understand the espression "public form of c". I would >certainly agree that means of production can be owned by the state, >but that doesn't mean that the form that it takes is as constant >capital. C (and V) are part of a circuit of capital. To the >extent that they are removed from the circuit then they cease to >be c (and v). Instead, they take the form of money spent by the >state on means of production and wage-labor. But Jerry what you are saying here is that ownership determines whether something serves as constant capital. Let's say the state taxes five capitalists and buys a building for all of them. Now if each capitalist had bought the building on his own, it would have counted as constant capital. Its costs would have been recovered in the commodities which he sold (say shoes). So why wouldn't the costs of the building be recovered in commodity sales if the capitalist did not buy the building himself but paid taxes to the state so it could purchase the building for him and fellow capitalists (assume the state charges no rent)? Why is the building any less constant capital if the state has purchased it through tax revenue than if the capitalists paid for it directly? Don't we have here a public form of constant capital? Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT