> I suggest that in order to isolate the question at issue,
whether
> a shift from domestic service to the production of luxuries adds
to
> surplus value, you try to construct an example encompassing the
whole
> economy, and explicitly modeling the allocation of the entire
working
> population.
>
> Diego Guerrero wrote:
>>
Paul, I think that you are wrong. May be your interpretation of
>>
reproduction
>> is biased by the fact that you usually work with models
of economies that
>> are always growing at the maximum rates of growth,
and therefore there is
>> no
>> place for increasing
accumulation using money coming from outside the
>> capitalist sector
or from capitalists who were not yet investing all his
>> surplus
value? I donât know.
>>
>>
>>
>> But suppose
a capitalist who consume all his surplus value: his
>>
production
>> of value amounts to 24: 12 c + 6 v + 6 s, and he consumes
all his s in
>> this
>> way: 3 units of normal goods (Sg), 1
luxury good (Sl), and 2 units of
>> domestic services (servants): Sd.
We can see this in Table 1:
>>
>>
>>
>>
Table
1
>>
>>
>>
>>
C =
12
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
V = 6
>>
>>
>> Sg
= 3
>>
>>
>> Sl=
1
>>
>>
>> Sd =
2
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In terms of use
value, production is 24, ie 12 means of production, and
>>
12
>> means of consumption = 6 normal means of consumption for workers
plus 3
>> for
>> himself plus 1 luxury means of consumption,
and 2 means of consumption
>> for
>> servants. We have it in
Table 2:
>>
>>
>>
>> Table
2
>>
>>
>>
>>
MP = 12
>>
>>
>>
MCg = 6 +
3
>>
>>
>> MCl =
1
>>
>>
>> MCg =
2
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But if he puts his
servants to work in a firm of luxuries (that,
>> according
>>
to you, would be a firm where labour is unproductive) he will
âenrichâ
>> himself instead of âimpoverishingâ himself (using
approximate words from
>> Smith). Of course he will need to invest in
new means of production and
>> combine them with the same work he was
paying at home and now pays inside
>> the firm as productive labour.
Those workers will produce now new surplus
>> value for him and of
course new value added and new total value. Total
>> value
>>
produced is now 26,67 instead of 24, and value added 13,33 instead of
12.
>> Note that the rate of surplus value and the value composition of
capital
>> do
>> not
change.
>>
>>
>>
>> In terms of value he
detours the 2 units of money that he consumed before
>> as
>>
revenue for his servants to buy now means of production for 1,33 units
>> and
>> capital variable for 0,67 (wages are the same, but
they were not capital
>> before but revenue), and then obtain 0,67 of
additional surplus value.
>> See
>> Table 3: his surplus
value is now 6,77 = the sum of 6 (as before) plus
>> 0,67
>>
coming form his new productive
workers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Table
3
>>
>>
>>
>>
C =
12
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
V = 6
>>
>>
>> Sg
=
2,33
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Sl = 3
>>
>>
>>
Sk=
>>
>>
1,33
>>
>> âC =
1,33
>> âV =
0,67
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, that
means that the material composition of production has
>> changed. We
have now more means of production (14,67), and the same means
>>
of
>> consumption (12). But the composition of the means of consumption
has
>> changed at its turn: we have now 3 units of luxuries and just
2,33 of
>> normal goods consumed by the capitalist; the rest (6,77) are
of course
>> consumed by workers. See Table
4:
>>
>>
>>
>> Table
4
>>
>>
>>
>>
MP = 13,33 +
1,33
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
MCg = 6,67 +
2,33
>>
>>
>> MCl
=
3
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
So the conclusion is clear. To put servants to work in a productive
firm,
>> even if that firm produces luxuries, amounts to the capitalist
to expand
>> the
>> ground for accumulation (of both, value
and surplus value on the one
>> hand,
>> and means of
production on the other hand). Of course all luxuries are
>>
âcontingentâ in my own terms, but require labour that is absolutely
>>
productive if the workers are employed in a capitalist firm instead of
at
>> home.
>>
>>
>>
>> And note
finally that the luxuries referred to could even be the same
>>
âdomestic servicesâ as before, ie of the same material nature that
those
>> workers performed at home
before.
>>
>>
>>
>> PS. I add a word file
because of tables'
deformation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
Original Message -----
>> From: "Paul Cockshott" <
wpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To:
<OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 11:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] basics
vs. non-basics and financial services
>>
>>
>>
> Diego Guerrero wrote:
>> >> Paul, you say: "The mass
of surplus value can not
>> >>
>>
>>> be altered by activities in the 3rd sector producting luxuries
etc."
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> Suppose a system producing 10 iron, 10 corn and 100 luxuries,
with
>> 10, 10
>> >> and 100 workers respectively.
As distribution can be any
>> distribution,
>> >>
this
>> >> would be possible. Do you mean that wages and
profits in this third
>> >> sector
>>
>> come from the two former? I don't think so. Another, very
different
>> >> thing,
>> >> would be
if this third sector were public administration. Then
>> >>
productivity
>> >> in the two productive sectors would have
to be much higher that in
>> the
>> >>
other
>> >> sector in order for them to be able to pay
taxes and redistribute
>> such a
>> >> quantity
of surplus value.
>> >>
>> >> In my
opinion, in the first case we have new areas for accumulation
>>
of
>> >> capital and production of new surplus value. In
the second case we
>> would
>> >> have new areas
outside value production that would reduce the
>>
potential
>> >> of
>> >> accumulation
of capital.
>> >>
>> >>
Diego
>> > What I mean is that the third
sector
>> >
>> > 1. Can not produce relative
surplus value
>> > 2. Can produce some absolute surplus value
but, and this is crucial
>> > 3. This absolute surplus value
can not be accumulated
>> >
>>
>
>> > 1. The luxury sector can not produce relative
surplus value
>> > since to produce relative
surplus value its output would
>> > have to
enter directly or indirectly into the real wage.
>>
>
>> > 2. It could produce absolute surplus value, so its
employees
>> > can be exploited by being
forced to work beyond the time
>> >
necessary to reproduce the value of their wages, but in
>>
> this they are no different from butlers and the other
feudal
>> > retainers that Smith stigmatised
as unproductive. These too
>> > may have to
work long hours.
>> >
>> > 3. Why can the
surplus value produced in this sector not be
>>
> accumulated?
>> >
>>
> Because of its material form.
>>
>
>> > Assume depts I, and II remain
unchanged, but that working hours
>> >
increase in dept III. This increase in working hours will
result
>> > in a more valuable product in
dept III, but this surplus comes
>> > in the
material form of luxuries and services which can not be
>>
> accumulated as constant capital. Its output must thus
be
>> unproductively
>> > consumed
by the capitalist class.
>> >
>> > Thus the
third sector is not what you describe as "new areas for
>> >
accumulation of
>> > capital and production of new surplus
value".
>> >
>> > It is what it always was,
a drain on the process of accumulation and
>> > thus on
capitalist economic progress. This is the reason why Smith
>>
> insists on productive labour producing vendible commodities
that
>> > persist through time.
>>
>
>> > This is the same reason why the production of
weapons is unproductive,
>> > whether this takes place in
state factories or private factories.
>> > Workers engaged in
the production of nuclear missiles are
>> > producing means of
*destruction* not means of *production* and
>> > as such can
not contribute directly or indirectly to the
>> > accumulation
of the means of production.
>> >
>> > If we
loose sight of the underlying material relationships of
>> >
production and focus only on legal superficialities we get led
>>
> astray by the 'illusions of competition'.
>>
>
>> > Given your figures for labour inputs we
have
>> >
>> > Let us now look at your
example
>> >
>>
> labour wages
constant gross value
>>
>
capital output
>> >
I 10
1
10 20
>> >
II 10
1
2 12
>>
> III 100
10
8 108
>>
>
>> > Sales by dept I
>>
> 10 within the department
>>
> 2 to dept II
>>
> 8 to dept III
>>
>
>> > Sales by dept II
>>
> 1 to workers in dept I, 1 to workers in dept II, 10
to workers in
>> dept
>> > III
>>
>
>> > Sales by dept III
>>
> 9 to capitalists in dept I
>>
> 9 to capitalist in dept II
>>
> 90 consumed by themselves
>>
>
>> > Now suppose that hours of work in III are raised
10%, we get
>> >
labour wages constant gross
value
>>
>
capital output
>> >
I 10
1
10 20
>> >
II 10
1
2 12
>>
> III 110
10
8 118
>>
>
>> > Sales by dept I - unchanged
>>
>
>> > Sales by dept II - unchanged
>>
>
>> > Sales by dept III
>>
> 9 to capitalists in dept I
>>
> 9 to capitalist in dept II
>>
> 100 consumed by themselves
>>
>
>> > So the net effect can only be to increase the
personal consumption of
>> > one section of the capitalist
class - that section whose workers make
>> > luxuries. The
effect therefore is identical to what would have
>> > occurred
if they made their personal servants work longer hours.
>>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
--
>> > Paul Cockshott
>> > Dept Computing
Science
>> > University of Glasgow
>>
>
>> >
>> >
>> > 0141
330 3125
>>
>
>
> --
> Paul Cockshott
>
Dept Computing Science
> University of
Glasgow
>
>
>
> 0141 330 3125
>