From: Jerry Levy (jerry_levy@VERIZON.NET)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2008 - 16:56:03 EST
> > No. You are assuming away the issue. Just like Departments I > > and II, Department III requires C + V for production and > > reproduction. > Yes, therefore production and reproduction of Dept. III cannot > exist without the S created in Depts. I and II. Hi Dave Z: That's a chicken-and-egg type argument if we are assuming capitalist social relations since wage-labour employed by capital and S wouldn't exist without capitalists who themselves require consumption goods for their class and their class relation with workers to be reproduced. > > The S produced in _any_ of the 3 Departments can be invested > > in the reproduction of commodities in _any_ of the 3 > > departments. > This cannot be correct. S can be reinvested in additional means > of production (Dept. I) or spent on unproductive activities > (Dept. III), but not in wage goods (Dept. II). No, that is not correct. The S in Dept III can be productively invested by purchasing _more_ V in Dept. II - and thus allowing for what Paul Z would call the accumulation of capital. All that is required for this to happen is that there is a positive IRA. > 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. >> The S produced in Dept. III can't be used to invest in wage >> goods. For V in Dept. III, the same remark as above applies. See above. In solidarirty, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST