Re Allin's [5430]:
Previously I noted:
> > You haven't given a reason yet *why* the
> > unsold inventory should
> > be counted as part of constant capital.
Allin responded:
> Please see Paul's ship-building example from
> the other day; it's the same issue.
No, I think it's not the same issue.
> If the "unsold inventory" had been sold by the
> producer to a separate retailing enterprise,
> it would be circulating constant capital for
> the retailer, right? But re-drawing the juridical
> line between producer and retailer doesn't alter
> anything essential.
It is interesting that this discussion began with a
discussion of issues associated, in part, with
Volume 2, Ch. 7. Now we have arrived
(with a small step backwards) at issues
associated with Volume 2, Ch. 6 ("The Costs
of Circulation").
Putting aside for now the issue of the costs of
storage and transport, your position is that
the unsold commodities represent constant
capital. Marx, however, refers to the
"commodity stock" as "commodity capital
on the market" rather than constant capital.
I see no argument there that suggests that
this unsold inventory should count as constant
capital. Do you?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT