I can see how a part of surplus-value in one period might
be used to increase the quantity of unproductive labor in
the next period. But the main question with regard to
these costs is: how are these costs (i.e. this investment of
capital) RECOVERED out of the price of the commodities
produced in the next period? I argue that Marx¹s answer
to this question was: these costs are recovered out of the
SURPLUS-VALUE produced by productive labor in the
next period. This is what Marx meant in the various
passages I have cited in a previous post where Marx said
that these costs are "DEDUCTIONS FROM SURPLUS-VALUE"
- he meant that these costs are RECOVERED out of the
surplus-value component of the price of commodities.
If these costs were part of the constant capital component
of the price of commodities (which Murray and Jurriaan
are arguing), then these costs would be recovered out of
this constant capital component and would not have to be
recovered out of the surplus-value component, and hence
would not be "deductions from surplus-value." That is
why I have argued that these costs cannot be a part of
constant capital - because then these costs would not be
recovered out of surplus-value and thus would not be
"deductions from surplus-value," which Marx clearly said
that they are.
The same thing is true of the costs of unproductive labor
in the first period, before the use of surplus-value to
increase the unproductive labor in the second period.
Again, the question is: how were these costs recovered
out of the price of the commodities produced in the first
period? Again, I would argue: these costs are recovered
out of the surplus-value component of the price of the
commodities produced in the first period. In this sense,
these costs in the first period are "deductions from
surplus-value" produced in the first period. These costs
cannot be recovered out of the constant capital
component of the price of commodities in the first period,
because then these costs would not be "deductions from
surplus-value."
Jurriaan suggests a different meaning of "deductions from
surplus-value" - the sense that potential surplus-value is
lost as a result of the stagnation of circulation. He cites a
discussion by Marx of storage costs in Chapter 6 of Vol. 2.
But I disagree. Even if there may be a loss of potential
surplus-value, due to the stagnation of circulation, this is
not what Marx meant by "deductions from surplus-
value". Marx meant that unproductive costs must be
RECOVERED out of surplus-value. This meaning is clear
in Marx's statement of the "general law" with respect to
circulation costs:
The general law is that ALL CIRCULATION COSTS
THAT ARISE SIMPLY FROM A CHANGE IN THE FORM
OF THE COMMODITY CANNOT ADD ANY VALUE TO IT.
They are simply costs involved in realizing
the value or transferring it from one form into
another. The capital expended in these costs
(including the labor it commands) belongs to the
FAUX FRAIS of capitalist production. The
REPLACEMENT of these costs must come from the
surplus product, and from the standpoint of the capitalist
class as a whole it forms a DEDUCTION OF SURPLUS-VALUE
or surplus product ... (C.II, pp. 225-26; last two emphases
added)
Looking forward to further discussion.
Comradely,
Fred