From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Mon Oct 10 2005 - 16:12:09 EDT
I agree that you now have a feasible transition from stage A to C1. But I think your example now proves my point, which was that growth and accumulation depend on the surplus produced in sectors I and II whereas sector III is indistinguishable from the employment of servants at the macroeconomic level. Your original table A was A) Simple reproduction: I 10c + 5v + 5s = 20 II 8c + 4v + 4s = 16 III 2c + 1v + 1s = 4 --------------------------------- Total 20c + 10v + 10s = 40 In order to get a feasible transition to expanded reproduction you had to amend this to a new Table A, call it A' A') I 10c + 5v + 5s = 20 II 9c + 4.5v + 4.5s = 18 III 1c + 0.5v + 0.5s = 2 ------------------------------------- Total 20c + 10v + 10s = 40 Note that in this you have had to reduce the output of dept III from 10% of total output to 5%. This rise in the share of the basic sector allows for the system to have an increased capacity to grow. You then shift to state B with the same number of industrial workers. B) I 11c + 5.5v + 5.5s = 22 II 8c + 4v + 4s = 16 III 1c + 0.5v + 0.5s = 2 ------------------------------------- Total 20c + 10v + 10s = 40 B has an expanded sector I and is now capable of accumulation which your original system was not. Note that the precondition of accumulation is an economy with an increased surplus in depts I and II. Thus in order to carry out accumulation, sectors I and II had to produce more surplus value. The surplus value that you were originally producing in sector III (example A) was as I contended incapable of supporting accumulation. In your scenario C1 the servants are now working in sector III C1) I 12c + 6v + 6s = 24 II 7c + 3.5v + 3.5s = 14 III 3c + 1.5v + 1.5s = 6 ------------------------------------- Total 22c + 11v + 11s = 44 The capitalists are now consuming their servants labour indirectly in the form of commodities which accounts for 2 of the growth of sector III from 2 to 6. The remaining growth of 2, in sector III is accounted for by consuming a higher part of the output of dept I unproductively. The original capitalist consumption was 8(ii) + 2(III) now it is 2(i)+3(ii)+6(iii) You now have a system capable of growing and accumulating but that capacity to grow has nothing to do with the new workers in dept III since their labour is being unproductively consumed, instead it is due to the rise in sector I. Your example c2 C2) I 12c + 6v + 6s = 24 II 9c + 4.5v + 4.5s = 18 III 1c + 0.5v + 0.5s = 2 ------------------------------------- Total 22c + 11v + 11s = 44 differs from c1 in that you have expanded II and the capitalists are presumably consuming more of dept II and less of dept III. But look at the balance of of the basic sector in the two cases. In c1 we have a surplus of 5(I) + 3(ii) from the basic sector in case c2 we have a surplus from the basic sector of 3(i)+ 7(ii) the output of the basic sector can potentially take the form of new capital either constant capital in the case of (i) or the real wage correlate of variable capital in the case of (ii). We know from your example (c2) that the capitalists can cut their consumption of dept ii to 2(ii). This indicates that after providing necessary consumption to the capitalists the respective surpluses are: 5(i)+1(ii) =6 :C1 3(i)+5(ii) =8 :C2 Thus as I have argued, example C2 where the servants move to depts I and II has the greater capacity for accumulation, and this greater capacity of accumulation is due to the servants having been productively employed. The employment of the servants in dept III in C1 can be seen to deduct from the accumulable surplus value. In case C1 all that has happened is that a number has been allocated to the domestic labour of the servants, it now appears on the books of the capitalists at its full value rather than half value. But the labour is still being consumed unproductively and supported out of revenue. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Diego Guerrero Sent: 10 October 2005 15:41 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] cockshott, Fw: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics and financial services Paul ---- >The problem here is that you endow capitalists with the power of >magic. In period 1 the total output of means of production was 20c >by the miracle of abstinence they now find themselves in possession >of a total means of production of 22c to use up in the second period. Diego ---- There is no magic nor miracles. Perhaps I jumped too quickly to the final state inmy previous post. Look at the tables A, B and C1: A) I 10c + 5v + 5s = 20 II 9c + 4.5v + 4.5s = 18 III 1c + 0.5v + 0.5s = 2 ------------------------------------- Total 20c + 10v + 10s = 40 B) I 11c + 5.5v + 5.5s = 22 II 8c + 4v + 4s = 16 III 1c + 0.5v + 0.5s = 2 ------------------------------------- Total 20c + 10v + 10s = 40 C1) I 12c + 6v + 6s = 24 II 7c + 3.5v + 3.5s = 14 III 3c + 1.5v + 1.5s = 6 ------------------------------------- Total 22c + 11v + 11s = 44 In A and B we have all servants at capitalists' houses. But in A, instead of a consumption of 8(II) plus 2(III) and no investment, they spend 6(II) plus 2(III) plus investment 2 (I). Factories workers have to partially move from II to I, and therefore production have to change in the same direction to face the new structure of demand. In C, all servants (who are a quantity of 1) come to factories of III, but as accumulation proceeds we have at the same time new changes in labour and production from II to I. Expenses by capitalists of their new total income (11) go to 3(II) + 6(III) + 2(I). So, there is no magic but growth due to investment in factories (1 new workers coming to factories in III + 2 new means of production used up in III). Capital variable has grown by 1, Value added by 2, and total value by 4. You can compare now Tables C1 and C2, where new workers have not gone to III but to the other departments instead. The situation is the same. This can be interpreted in this way: using a model with only 2 dep. instead of III, C1 and C2 amounts to the same situation: means of consumption and means of production are in the same relative proportion. Therefore, it does not matter if goods of consumption are "contingent" or "necessary" --remember?--: in both cases labour producing them are productive of surplus value. C2) I 12c + 6v + 6s = 24 II 9c + 4.5v + 4.5s = 18 III 1c + 0.5v + 0.5s = 2 ------------------------------------- Total 22c + 11v + 11s = 44 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] cockshott, Fw: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics and financial services
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 12 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT