Gerry, Yes of course the capitalist class is very reluctant to allow the State to be involved in production processes, the discipline of profit cannot be clearly worked out in that relation, taxation is all too easily used in non productive activities. Neverthless it must be indisputable that where, especially in Europe after WW2, the State steps in to reconstruct and control the finances of steel, iron, coal, railways etc these industries are producing commodities for general sale and 'surpluses' were demanded by the state of these industries... eventually the political pressures creating the legal control of the process were changed and the relationship transfered back to where it 'belonged'... privatisation... to private shareholders. Surely you are not going to rely on legal formality ? In the same way as 'profit' can arise in non productive circulating activities, (where a claim is made on the SV produced previously) then surplus value can be pumped out in 'non private' production activities...as long as were are clear that the State acts as the collective capitalist, producing a commodity, in specific branches of industry, reluctantly and (historically) temporarily. You won't recall Marx refering to the State and production, but you will recall Engels consideration of the developing relation between State and the economy.... history is dynamic.. we have to understand how the social form of capital takes on historical guises, fights against its own imminent contradictions in every way. I don't think we can simply 'textualise' contemporary reality. This is very important for political analysis.... is the State a capitalist State? If it is it won't (without fetishising it) want to create unproductive relations, to abandon its guardianship of private property of profit making. I suspect a certain formalism in the approach that says the modern imperialist state can be understood by refering to Marx's assessment of his predecessors economic view of quasi feudal or early modern States. Best wishes Paul -----Original Message----- From: Gerald_A_Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: 15 March 2001 13:46 Subject: [OPE-L:5175] Re: Re: Re: Re: waste, value, and potential >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