Rakesh, You present my argument correctly, thanks, Paul B -----Original Message----- From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: 08 March 2001 20:34 Subject: [OPE-L:5123] Re: Re: Re: Re: waste, value, and potential >sorry for my previously garbled post, but Jerry still speaks to the point: > >so re 5122 > >> >>My position is rather that if the surplus value is transferred >>to the state, then it is unproductively consumed. I.e. instead of >>using the s for productive investment in c & v it is spent instead >>as revenue. > >Jerry, I don't think you are meeting Paul B's criticism head on. Why >can't the infrastructure built by the state be a public form of c? >Why can't its value be transferred through its use by labor to the >commodity output? > >This is how I understand Paul B's argument: The capitalist class >merely transfers the sum of surplus value it cannot invest on its own >to the state which then either builds itself or orders the public >good of infrastructure (say the interstate highway system) the value >of which is then no less transferred to the commodity output than the >building costs which capitalists have privately absorbed are >recovered in the sale of commodity output. > >This is how I understand Paul B's point; it may be the argument >already made by Shane Mage. > >If they are right, then much less capital is wasted than we have thought. > > > >> As for the wage-workers building the infrastructure it >>depends fundamentally on whether they are employed by capital or the >>state. It is important to remember that workers producing the same >>use-value can be either productive or unproductive (of s) depending >>on whether they are employed by capital to produce commodities. > >Yes, I agree with this. The question is whether the infrastructure >itself is a public form of constant capital. > > > >>The infrastructure from a social perspective (from the standpoint >>of whether it contributes to an increase in social wealth) is >>not "waste". But the question is whether it represents additional >>value and wealth or wealth alone. > >If it is a public form of constant capital, it does represent value >which is transferred to the commodity output. > > >Yours, Rakesh > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT