Re Paul B's [5193]: > 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 raise some interesting issues which I would like to disentangle a bit. Let's consider first what I understand to be the main type of state production that you refer to. Namely, instances in Europe (and elsewhere) following World War II when there was the nationalization of industry. To begin with, I agree that the labor so employed should be considered -- in the main -- to be production labor. Yet, labor engaged in production is not necessarily productive of surplus value. How are we to understand these nationalizations? I would assert that most of these industries were taken over by the state only under the threat of plant closings and bankrupcy. In that case, the state took over these industries *not to be able to produce surplus value* but to: a) protect the value of the company from being prematurely lost; b) to ensure that there wasn't a "domino effect" whereby many other capitalists, that depended on the demand by the firm being nationalized or the workers employed at that firm for sale of their output, didn't also go out of business. Thus, at the same time the state let small businesses go out of business they took action when a major capitalist (and employer) threatened bankrupcy. The object, then, of the state acquisition was to protect the prospects for continued capital accumulation on the national level (in other words, to forestall a national economic catastrophe); c) as a concession to individual capitalists who demanded protection *and* as a concession to workers' and trade union demands that the state act to protect their jobs. It is interesting to note that in the case of Germany many of the nationalizations were mandated by the Allied military forces. Thus, perhaps we should also see this restructuring process as part of what became the Marshall Plan and, relatedly, an effort to diffuse workers' militancy and the prospects for revolutionary change. In the case of some other countries, like France, the influence of Social Democratic and (mass) Communist parties on government policy should not be entirely discounted. Indeed, the fear by these parties and trade union federations (such as the CGT) that plant closings would cause mass unemployment was a motivating force for demands for state take-overs. Perhaps, additionally, such action was taken because of the fear (both by the state *and* the SD and CP and trade union "leadership") that if there was continued inaction then the workers themselves would take-over and occupy the factories (and, in fact, in some instances this occurred) and unleash a dynamic that could get "out of control". But, I think the main point to remember is that there was no immediate anticipation by the state or others that such plants could generate a surplus. Indeed, it was anticipated that they would generate a loss. And it was, as you suggest, only after the state-owned enterprises had demonstrated that they could receive a profit (a share of the total surplus value) that there were demands for privatization. In other instances, the motivation and dynamics of state ownership may be diferent. E.g. we can agree that there are, in many countries, both privately-owned and state-owned schools and hospitals. In some cases, the state-owned schools and hospitals used to be privately- owned. In some cases, state-owned schools and hospitals have become privatized. The same use-values are produced at both kinds of schools and hospitals. The labor employed at both kinds of schools and hospitals is, in the main, engaged in production. But, in the state-owned schools and hospitals wage-labor is exchanged against revenues rather than capital, i.e. it is not capitalistically employed. From my perspective, then, it is not labor which is productive of surplus value. Of course, one could note that there is a price in many cases attached to the services provided by these state-owned hospitals and schools. E.g. in the US most public colleges have tuitions (although there were *huge* social struggles, as in the case of SUNY and CUNY, over the question of whether there would continue to be free tuition -- and open admissions -- or whether there would be unfree tuition -- and "standards" conccerning admissions). Yet, even where students have to pay a tuition at these schools it is significantly less than the tuition at capitalist institutions of higher learning. I believe that this is a reflection of the fact that although goods are for sale here, there isn't surplus value production. Rather, those institutions are not self-sufficient and have to rely heavily on revenues provided by the state. Another kind of ownership possible under capitalism, generally under exceptional circumstances, is workers-ownership. Do the workers at those enterprises produce surplus-value? (Gil: are you listening?). Although I might be accused of being "formal" (Rakesh, I believe, once wrote in connection with a thread on whether slave labor was productive of surplus value, that I was "being formalistic to the point of tears" -- or words to that effect), I would say, "No". Yes, the worker-owners can produce goods which are sold on the market and come to be treated as if they were commodities. And, indeed, they do produce commodities if you believe that a commodity is any object which has both a use-value and an exchange-value (i.e. a product with a use-value that was produced in order to be sold). Yet, from my "formalistic" perspective, unless labor is capitalistically- employed then it can not produce surplus value. Gil might counter with some quotes from Volume 3. Fair enough. Yet, the question is what is the most consistent way of conceiving of productive labor. Also, I will note that many of the instances of workers' ownership only occurred after the firm announced that they would close a plant. The union or workers then bought the plant. In some of these cases, the very first thing that they did was to lay-off some of the other worker-owners. They also found, relatedly, that often the means of production were obsolete and that they could not compete with capitalist firms who employed more advanced technologies. In some cases (e.g. the former Hyatt Roller Bearing plant in Clark, NJ) the workers then discovered that they had bought a "pig in a poke" (i.e. that they had been swindled by their former employer into investing their life savings and pensions) and ultimately had to close the plants and declare bankrupcy. Paul continues: > 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 Agreed ... although it is easier said than done. > ... is > the State a capitalist State? Yes. > If it is it won't (without fetishising it) > want to create unproductive relations, to abandon its guardianship of > private property of profit making. Unproductive relations by the state can benefit profit-making. E.g. the military: workers who are employed by the military can help to bring about a redistribution of global surplus value to the benefit of capitalists within that nation. It is *also* true that while the state is a capitalist state, state policies can not always be comprehended by the logic of capital accumulation. E.g. under bourgeois democracy it is possible for the working-class to win (limited) reforms that are opposed by capitalists. Marx was certainly aware of this and supported many of those reform movements. > 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. Did I mention "quasi-feudal" or "early modern States"? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT