From: Philip Dunn (hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Sun Jan 13 2008 - 12:03:52 EST
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 14:54 +0100, Dave Zachariah wrote: > > I urge you to read the article, to get the full argument. However, using > the simple example of reproduction schemes I hope you can see that it is > evident: > > Let Department I produce the means of production, Department II produce > workers' consumption and Department III produce all the rest. Let P, W > and M denote profits, wages and material costs of production > respectively. Then for > > Department III | Total profits > M3 + W3 + P3 <= P1 + P2 + P3 > > Or, M3 + W3 <= P1 + P2. Production in Department III cannot take place > unless the flow of profits from the other Departments are directed to it > instead of accumulation. > I read the article some time ago. By fiat, it is possible to define Department III as unproductive. It would also be possible to define it as wholly productive. I doubt if the question can be decided in an a priori fashion. My taste is to regard as much as possible as productive unless a very good reason can be given for thinking otherwise. For example, I would treat advertising as a non-wage cost much like any other. Others would see it a deduction from surplus value. How can you tell? ___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST