Paul Cockshott wrote in [OPE-L:5302]
>This [i.e., my argument in OPE-L: 5291that revenue can be greater than
surplus-value as a consequence of the release of capital] is the sort of
accountancy that would have a company director jailed for fraud. Consuming
your seed corn does not convert it into revenue, it merely indicates that
your consumption exceeds your revenue.
Paul, it is not clear to me why do you think that capital which released
from the circuit of industrial capital, if it is converted into revenue,
"would have a company director jailed for fraud." I see this matter as
follows. If the director happens to be the owner of the company, I don't
see why this would be a fraud. Even if you are considering a joint-stock
company, the conversion of capital previously tied-up to the circuit of
capital into (say) dividends - which would then distribute this capital
released among the stockholders - does not seem to me also to constitute a
fraud
(at least, in legal terms). The conversion of capital into revenue may be
seen as a "fraud" against capital accumulation, or in Marx words: "In so
far, therefore, as his [i.e.,capitalist] actions are a mere function of
capital ... his own private consumption counts as a robbery committed
against the accumulation of capital..."(Capital, vol. I, Vintage Edition,
p. 739). But this does not seem to be your argument.
As far as your second comment - "Consuming your seed corn does not convert
it into revenue, it merely indicates that your consumption exceeds your
revenue" - I would like to ask you how capitalist's consumption can exceed
revenue without incurring in debt? I do not think that the introduction of
credit relations helps to understand the issue we are discussing: can
revenue be greater than surplus-value? Could you please clarify your
argument further?
I think that the following analysis of Marx is important for this
discussion. In TSV (part III, Progress Publisher, p. 344-45) he argues
that:
"Let us [now] consider the manufacturer. Let us assume that he has laid out
$100 in cotton twist and made a profit of $20. The product therefore
amounts to $120. It is assumed that $80 out of the outlay of $100 has been
paid for cotton. If the price of cotton falls by half, he will now need to
spend only $40 on the cotton and $20 for the rest, that is $60 in all
(instead of $100) and the profit will be $20 as previously, the total
product will amount to $80 (if he does not increase the scale of his
production). $40 THUS REMAINS IN HIS POCKET. HE CAN EITHER SPEND IT OR
INVEST IT AS ADDITIONAL CAPITAL....
"Thus it is not the fact that the farmer replaces HIS SEED CORN IN KIND
which is the key, for the manufacturer buys his cotton and does not replace
it out of his own product. What this phenomenon amounts to is this:
RELEASE OF A PORTION OF THE CAPITAL PREVIOUSLY TIED UP IN CONSTANT CAPITAL,
OR THE CONVERSION OF A PORTION OF THE CAPITAL INTO REVENUE. If exactly the
same amount of capital is laid out in the reproduction process as
previously, then it is the same as if additional capital had been employed
on the old scale of production.)
Eduardo