Re Rakesh's [OPE-L:5142]: > But let's say that some portion of the means of > production which > absorb labor and surplus labor cannot be or is best not > owned privately. There are many examples of "public goods" especially in advanced capitalist societies. In many cases, these public goods are produced by the state because they could not be produced efficiently by individual capitalists (e.g. consider fire protection). Yet, this does not mean that the means of production thereby employed come to take the capital-form. > . I still think Paul B's argument is not being met > head on. To repeat once again: I'll let Paul B speak for himself. I do this in order to avoid possible confusion: I'm willing to debate Paul's position and your position but I'm not willing to accept that your interpretation of Paul's position is necessarily correct. As for my own position, let me recapitualate: wealth is produced by labor and nature; value under capitalism is produced by wage-labor employed by capital in commodity production. What this means is that some proportion of the social wealth is *not value*. I.e. it is wealth alone but not also value. E.g. the products produced by bonded (unfree) labor represent wealth but not value; objects can be produced by nature alone and then merely be socially appropriated and sold (wealth but not value); unproductive labor employed by the state can produce wealth but not value. It is in this last category that I place the infrastructure (such as roads) when produced by state labor. This infrastructure when produced by unproductive labor can not take the capital-form because they do not take the value-form or have value -- even though they represent social *wealth*. This wealth, of course, can benefit the capitalist class within an individual nation. Even though that may frequently be the case, it must be distinguished from the capital-form. Unfortunately, this distinction between value and wealth suggested by Marx has important consequences in terms of our ability to reliably measure value since it would be very difficult as a practical matter to separate the national income accounts into the monetary worth of social wealth which represents value and the monetary worth of that proportion of the social wealth that is wealth alone. In theory, I suppose such calculations could be done *if* governments used these criteria in the construction of national income accounts. That is not the case, though. (I had an interesting experience yesterday re roads -- actually sidewalks. I was walking down 2nd Ave. near Houston St when I approached a barricade stretched across the sidewalk. I was told that I would have to pay a "sidewalk tax" in order to be allowed to pass. The money-collectors explained to those present that Guiliani had just passed a law taxing sidewalks. I responded by saying "That's illegal" and I then proceeded by saying "The sidewalks belong to the people. This is bull ----". One of the two guys then took out a camera and snapped a shot of my face! [with the suggestion that it would be used later in court proceedings]. Yet, I noticed that down the block someone with a videocamera was taping everything. As I went down the block, I approached him and said: "What is this, Candid Camera?". He said "Yeah" and smiled. Then I smiled as well. Of course, the state *can* charge for the use of public roads and bridges -- as those who pay tolls know. Yet, this does not mean that the state labor employed in highway or bridge construction or toll collection now becomes productive of surplus value). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT