From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Fri Mar 30 2007 - 23:53:56 EDT
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >> I was wondering whether anyone could recommend any other work or >> offer some analytical comments on just why capitalism could not >> settle into simple reproduction (stationary state?) or why even >> if were constrained to do so it would have difficulty >> maintaining equilibrium. > > It's possible "in principle", Yes, I see your point that follows also. And it does seem to me that simple reproduction is possible in principle, but I find this following objection in Mattick's reading of the chapters on simple reproduction. I don't see that he or Marx is right. "Marx then showed how the double character of the commodity, as value and use value, transforms even the apparent equilibrium of simple reproduction into disequilibrium. Thus, for example, the wear and tear and replacement of fixed capital can produce dislocations in the value-defined conditions of exchange, destroying any possibility of equilibrated reproduction. Without going into Marx’s examples of the appearance of disproportionality within simple reproduction, it here needs to be stressed only that they apply exclusively to capitalist reproduction. Once the capitalist form of reproduction is abolished, it is only a matter of the volume of the expiring portion-expiring and therefore to be reproduced in kind of fixed capital.. . varying in various successive years. If it is very large in a certain year ... then it is certainly so much smaller in the next year. The quantity of raw materials, semi-finished products, and auxiliary materials. does not decrease in consequence. Hence the aggregate production of means of production would have to increase in the one case and decrease in the other. This can be remedied only by a continuous relative overproduction. There must be on the one hand a certain quantity of fixed capital produced in excess of that which is directly required; on the other hand, and particularly, there must be a supply of raw materials, etc., in excess of the direct annual requirements... – This sort of overproduction is tantamount to control by society over the material means of its own reproduction. But within capitalist society it is an element of anarchy." So as I understand the argument: given the conditions of simple reproduction there could not be varying annual levels in the production of 'fixed' capital. For the 'fixed capital' to be available, then, when it needed to be replaced--and given its physical or use value characteristics it would turn over more slowly than wage goods--fixed capital would have to be overproduced every period. This would not be a problem in non capitalist production; on the contrary. But for capitalism it is a source of anarchy. If this argument is valid, then what are consequences of this anarchic element? I'm confused about this, and appreciate much the response. Yours, Rakesh if the capitalists consume the > surplus and just carry out replacement investment. But I'd say > the instability stems from this consideration: as soon as each > capitalist sees that his competitors are just plodding along doing > the same thing over and over, he realizes he could carry out a > little investment, improve his technology, and make a killing. > Excessive stability creates a strong incentive to destabilize. > > Allin Cottrell >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT