Re Paul B's [OPE-L:5173]: > Yes, case by case indeed, but it seems pretty > evident that the same road can > be used as part of the reproduction process > generally and/or for private > (revenue) final - non capitalistic - use, as i said > before. Neverthless, > even this argument cannot evade the fact that > surplus labour is extorted in > the building of roads, railways etc and I see this > labour process as all > productive.... otherwise we will be denying that > all final consumption goods > production not aimed at reproducing constant or > variable capital is > unproductive ( eg luxury good production) and > this is clearly contrary to > Marx. Suppose that all of the labor used in the building of the roads, railways etc. are employed by the state. In that case would surplus labour (time) be extorted by the state? Wouldn't that require that state employees be productive of surplus value and that part of the government wage bill would represent variable capital? I don't think that position fits in well with Marx's perspectives. Indeed, I don't recall Marx remarking on even a single instance in which state workers should be viewed as productive of surplus value. Can you? As for your last sentence, we have to examine also whether there is productive or unproductive *consumption* of capital. If all of the surplus value was unproductively consumed, then the accumulation of capital would not be possible. Thus, the productive re-investment of surplus value in c and v is a precondition for the continued accumulation of capital. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT