Rakesh, Your conclusion is correct, the capitalist state cannot be the basis for reform, gradualism, etc. It was not my prime concern to say this, except when I criticised you for talking of the state 'stealing', or whatever word you used , surpluses from the capitalists. Your expression then, as i said, implied that the State and capitalists as a class were at loggerheads... which is quite impossible. The State is the leading political force for capitalists... nothing from Marx could be used to prove otherwise. Paul B -----Original Message----- From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: 10 March 2001 18:10 Subject: [OPE-L:5142] the capital-form and the state >re Jerry's 5133 > > >>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. > > >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. As Paul B has argued, the state may hold in trust (so to >speak) some of the bourgeoisie's means of production. This would >suggest that the growth of the state need not represent a non >capitalist mode of production within capitalism or the inroads of >state socialism. I still think Paul B's argument is not being met >head on. > > > >>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, > > >but means of production do not (after they have been purchased) again >take the commodity form (assuming no scrap value) and they still >function as constant capital. So why should it matter (as in my >previous example) whether each capitalist owns his own building or >whether the state has purchased a building for several capitalists >out of tax revenue? > >> >> >> >>(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). > > >I think Paul B's argument has destructive implications for the the >claim that the state sector within the advanced capitalist countries >already has a non capitalist character. > >Comradely, Rakesh > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT