Rakesh asked in [OPE-L:5129]: > Don't we have here a public form of constant capital? The state can own (and give away or sell through "privatization") means of production. This doesn't mean, though, that they function _as capital_ when owned and controlled by the state. This is because the capital-form assumes a set of social relationships that does not exist with state ownership and control. Control *and ownership* matter: property rights matter; whether a product takes the commodity-form matters, whether there is competition (a *necessary form of appearance* of capital) matters, whether there is a class relation between wage-labour and capitalists matters; whether a product has a use value alone or whether it also has an exchange value and value matters; whether there is production for surplus value and profit matters. (My suspicion is that this topic matters to many Marxists, perhaps including Rakesh, who want to leave theoretical space for something called "state capital". This, in turn, relates to historical debates among Marxists on the character of the Soviet economy). One can always see curiosities, though, in a mode of production. E.g. how would you classify the means of production owned by Communes? Even though they have a similar use-value as when owned and controlled by capitalists, do they (simply if they were *once* commodities and purchased on the market) *now* take the capital-form? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT