Re [5272]:
Paul (B) -- thanks for the stimulating
engagement.
On the question of nationalization, I will now
modify
my position as follows:
1) Due to transient and exceptional
circumstances,
the capitalist state may come to temporarily
direct and own a capitalist enterprise. The
reasons for
these actions by individual nation-states
have
been discussed in previous posts but tend to
either
be specific to an individual capitalist nation
and/or
conjuncture.
2) When there are nationalizations under
the
circumstances previously discussed, the state
takes, in effect, "temporary
custody" of the
enterprise. While in "foster care" by
the state,
the state tends to continue to operate the
enterprise
in the same
manner as it was operated when it
was under private ownership and control.
During
this time -- similar in some ways to when
firms
go into "receivership" when declaring
bankruptcy
-- there is "capital in seek of an
owner" as the
state seeks to arrange for a buyer. Due to
the
specific circumstances this might be a
protracted
period and the state may come to
(temporarily)
resign itself to continued
ownership.
3) Whether the enterprise, now directed
by agents
of the state, realizes surplus value
and profit
depends -- most fundamentally -- on whether
the
value created is greater than the VLP and the
value
transferred by the means of production. I.e.
it
depends on whether surplus labor time has
been
expended and whether the commodity output
is
sold (at value). There is no guarantee
that this will
take place. And, indeed, due to the
exceptional
circumstances that occurred prior to being
taken-
over by the state, the state may resign itself
for
a period of years to owning a firm
which is not
profitable and indeed might have to be
operated
temporarily at a loss. Once a surplus is
generated,
the state would, as we would
anticipate, come to
expect that it will be re-paid
out of profits for its
previous financing.
4) One might view this anomaly of
nationalization
as a productive appendage which is
temporarily
attached to an unproductive shell. [NB: we are
*only* talking now about a specific type
of
nationalization where the nature of
commodity
production remains constant]. A further
anomaly concerns the payment of wages. To
the
extent that the wage-laborers at the
nationalized
industry are paid checks issued by the state
and
are now officially state employees, then it
would
seem that wages are exchanged with revenue
(i.e.
out of state funds). Yet to the extent that
this
is only an accounting convention and that the
firm
remains a capitalist enterprise, one could say
that
wages are really exchanged with
capital.
5) A crucial question in terms of whether
there
will be continued surplus value production is
whether
there is productive consumption of s and
thereby
continued accumulation of capital. If,
for
example, the state does not invest in c and v
at
the enterprise and instead siphons s off for
(unproductive) state expenditure outside of
the
enterprise (i.e. for other state activities),
then
this could limit or prevent the generation of
continued s at the enterprise. Yet, the state
understands well that this would cost them in
the
longer-term even more money than they would gain
in the short-term and thus the state acts
to
accumulate capital at the enterprise level
and
thereby increase investment in c and v.
Of
course, none of this can happen unless
the
enterprise "turns the corner" and
actually
becomes profitable again.
6) Once it becomes obvious that the enterprise
is now capable of earning at least the
average
rate of profit, then demands for
de-nationalization
grow. However, as you suggest, it may
take a
crisis to force privatization. In any event,
these events are all conjunctural and do
not
fundamentally concern "basic
theory".
Note that the above only discussed the issue
of
nationalizations of the specific type that
we
have been discussing. Other issues such
as
roads built by state labor and workers'
ownership
have not been addressed here.
Once again I want to thank you for your
continued
comments and I, as Fred is fond of writing,
look
forward to further discussion.
In solidarity,
Jerry