From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Wed Oct 06 2004 - 10:06:37 EDT
It depends on what the relationship of use of the public capital was. There are two situations to consider 1. Flow from state capital to private capital. A public company which formerly produced commodities is sold to a private company also producing commodities. 2. Flow from non-commodity use to use as capital. For instance a school which was owned by the state and used to provide free education is sold to a private company which either uses it as a private fee paying school, or, accepts a contract from the state to provide schooling that is free to the pupils. I would view both of these as retrogressive. I tend to share Bordiga and Lenin's views of this, that state capital is a more advanced form than private capital so case 1 is retrogressive. Case 2 is clearly retrogressive. What you call the 'logic of the development of capitalism' is the same process that Marx analyses as the tendency for the supercession of the capitalist mode of production within the mode of production itself. State capital becomes necessary in areas where the high organic composition of capital prohibits profitable private capital investment. But this is merely an expression of the inner contradiction of the capitalist system and should be welcomed as a harbinger of its historical limits. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Francisco Paulo Cipolla Sent: 04 October 2004 18:59 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: (OPE-L) Re: explaining transitions among modes of production Hi Paul, would you consider privatizing public capital stock as a flow back into capitalism? Usually public capital stock grows out of a necessity of completing the social division of labor where private capital would not sink its money due to lower profitabilty or long turnover of capital. In any case public capital responds the logic of development of capitalism in this case. Would it not be weird to consider privatizing as a flow back into capitalism under these conditions? Paulo Paul Cockshott wrote: > What I was saying is that as a conceptual framework, > Markov transition theory seemed appropriate for thinking > of transitions between modes of productions. > > The idea that there exists probable rates of transition > can be held as a philosophical position without being > able to estimate these because the small sample size > we are working with precludes accurate estimates of > transition probabilities. > > The problem that historical materialism has is that > we have only a few samples of changes out of capitalism > to go on. It is probably still worth doing some empirical > research on this to see if any statistics can be derived > - for instance > > - How often do revolutionary conjunctures arrive > - What is the probability of such a conjuncture actually > causing a revolution > - Are there observable contingent factors which seem > to be correlated to such conjunctures > > I don't know if any Marxist has ever done a comprehensive > analysis of even these basic points. > > In addition one could look at whether there is a sufficient > number of examples of what one might call social democratic > transitions to make any generalisations about these. > To do this one would need some metric to estimate the > rate of progress of a social formation from capitalism to > socialism: > - one might use the percentage of social labour that > was not allocated by market means > - the percentage of the workforce publicly employed > - the percentage of output distributed according to need > rather than according to market incomes > - the percentage of the value of means of production in public > ownership > > If one had figures on these one could then derive figures for the > flow rates between modes of production for a sample of > developed capitalist countries. > > This would be how I would set about estimating the transition > probabilities, but the problem would be in attaching error bars > to the estimates. > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Gerald A. Levy > Sent: 02 October 2004 22:14 > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: (OPE-L) Re: explaining transitions among modes of production > > Paul C, > > I thought that we could advance the discussion if you > could select a single social formation and show us how > you would calculate the transition arc and probability > for capitalism => socialism over a reasonably long time > period. Your responded by suggesting that this "goes > well beyond what historical materialism is currently capable > of." > > OK, then how would you calculate the probability of > China/Japan/Holland/North Italy (or any combination of 4 > or more international/intercontinental comparisons that > you choose) making the transition from capitalism to > socialism over the next 50 years? > > If I understood what you wrote previously (on Thursday) > such a calculation is possible and does not go beyond > what historical materialism is capable of. > > In solidarity, Jerry > > Excerpts from Paul's post on Thursday: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > It is only when one starts looking > at international/intercontinental comparisons that one > can start thinking of it in stochastic terms - the probability > of China/Japan/Holland/North Italy undergoing a transition etc. > > So I think that if we are to progress the discussion we > should focus on particular transitions arcs on the graph - > and in view of their conjunctural relevance - I suggest we > focus on the arcs below: > > capitalism => socialism > socialism => capitalism > socialism => communism > communism => socialism > capitalism => communism > communism => capitalism > > I think that we can assign to all of these arcs some > non zero probability flux, but some are obviously more > probable than others, and we should have some theory > of what makes one arc more probable than another.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 07 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT