From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2008 - 15:14:48 EST
> Jerry, I think you need to put the argument in some formalism to make it> transparent. Let's use the three department model with monetary variables. Hi Dave: As I have already indicated, I don't agree that there should be a Dept III for capitalist consumption rather than it simply being part of Dept II. But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that there is. > The total surplus value created in Dept. I and II is spent on investment> and unproductive expenditure on commodities produced in Dept. III.> Therefore, whatever surplus value earned in Dept. III are deductions of> the surplus value from Dept. I and II. No. You are assuming away the issue. Just like Deptartments I and II, Department III requires C + V for production and reproduction. The S produced in _any_ of the 3 Departments can be invested in the reproduction of commodities in _any_ of the 3 departments. For Department III to have the effect you assert, there can't be V invested in that department and the S produced in Department III can't be used for investment in Departments I and II. ------------- Hi Jurriaan: Levels of abstraction in this case concern: - the process of capitalist production taken by itself; - the process of capitalist circulation taken by itself; - capitalist production as a whole in abstraction from the state: - the unity of capitalist production as a whole and the state. Hence, it is appropriate to consider the role of U first within the conttext of capital in general before going on to conceive of U at the level of abstraction where the state is taken into account. It's not a matter of 2+2, it's a matter of 1 then 2 then 3 then .... In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST