Re [5272]: Paul (B) -- thanks for the stimulating engagement. On the question of nationalization, I will now modify my position as follows: 1) Due to transient and exceptional circumstances, the capitalist state may come to temporarily direct and own a capitalist enterprise. The reasons for these actions by individual nation-states have been discussed in previous posts but tend to either be specific to an individual capitalist nation and/or conjuncture. 2) When there are nationalizations under the circumstances previously discussed, the state takes, in effect, "temporary custody" of the enterprise. While in "foster care" by the state, the state tends to continue to operate the enterprise in the same manner as it was operated when it was under private ownership and control. During this time -- similar in some ways to when firms go into "receivership" when declaring bankruptcy -- there is "capital in seek of an owner" as the state seeks to arrange for a buyer. Due to the specific circumstances this might be a protracted period and the state may come to (temporarily) resign itself to continued ownership. 3) Whether the enterprise, now directed by agents of the state, realizes surplus value and profit depends -- most fundamentally -- on whether the value created is greater than the VLP and the value transferred by the means of production. I.e. it depends on whether surplus labor time has been expended and whether the commodity output is sold (at value). There is no guarantee that this will take place. And, indeed, due to the exceptional circumstances that occurred prior to being taken- over by the state, the state may resign itself for a period of years to owning a firm which is not profitable and indeed might have to be operated temporarily at a loss. Once a surplus is generated, the state would, as we would anticipate, come to expect that it will be re-paid out of profits for its previous financing. 4) One might view this anomaly of nationalization as a productive appendage which is temporarily attached to an unproductive shell. [NB: we are *only* talking now about a specific type of nationalization where the nature of commodity production remains constant]. A further anomaly concerns the payment of wages. To the extent that the wage-laborers at the nationalized industry are paid checks issued by the state and are now officially state employees, then it would seem that wages are exchanged with revenue (i.e. out of state funds). Yet to the extent that this is only an accounting convention and that the firm remains a capitalist enterprise, one could say that wages are really exchanged with capital. 5) A crucial question in terms of whether there will be continued surplus value production is whether there is productive consumption of s and thereby continued accumulation of capital. If, for example, the state does not invest in c and v at the enterprise and instead siphons s off for (unproductive) state expenditure outside of the enterprise (i.e. for other state activities), then this could limit or prevent the generation of continued s at the enterprise. Yet, the state understands well that this would cost them in the longer-term even more money than they would gain in the short-term and thus the state acts to accumulate capital at the enterprise level and thereby increase investment in c and v. Of course, none of this can happen unless the enterprise "turns the corner" and actually becomes profitable again. 6) Once it becomes obvious that the enterprise is now capable of earning at least the average rate of profit, then demands for de-nationalization grow. However, as you suggest, it may take a crisis to force privatization. In any event, these events are all conjunctural and do not fundamentally concern "basic theory". Note that the above only discussed the issue of nationalizations of the specific type that we have been discussing. Other issues such as roads built by state labor and workers' ownership have not been addressed here. Once again I want to thank you for your continued comments and I, as Fred is fond of writing, look forward to further discussion. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:30 EDT