Re: Re: Re: public health (was: reparations)

[Roger Odisio <rodisio@xxxxxxx>]

Jim Devine wrote:

> Roger wrote:
> > > >Public health spending does not come out of surplus value, or the surplus
> > > >product, as you put it.  It, like education costs, e.g., is part of
> > labor's
> > > >social subsistence.  According to Marx:  subsistence is that bundle of
> > goods
> > > >and services necessary to "produce, develop, maintain, and perpetuate"
> > > >productive labor as a class.  Thus subsistence includes not only that
> > of the
> > > >worker, but also the nurture of offspring to "perpetuate" labor.
>
> I responded:
> > > this is true in terms of the _benefits_ of investment in public health
> > > (which is what I was talking about). However, to finance that investment
> > > (draining a swamp, e.g.), some of the surplus-product must be used. The
> > > swamp, once drained, provides the benefits of "producing, developing,
> > > maintaining, and perpetuating" productive labor as a class -- and
> > > nonproductive labor, too.
>
> Roger now writes:
> >Yes. The individual capitalist firm that sells health care services produces
> >surplus value.  I was talking about aggregates--what is remaining after the
> >necessities of productive labor are provided for.
>
> I don't understand why we are mis-communicating here. I was talking about
> aggregates, too. The resources for draining a swamp and similar investments
> in public health come from surplus-value (just like those for investments
> in the means of production). The benefits of draining the swamp help
> reproduce the working class over time.

If such benefits are necessary to reproduce labor over time, the costs of draining
the swamp are part of labor's necessities, not surplus value.  Just like a pill
that a worker buys that benefits his/her health.

> Other investments in health -- like the construction of HMO buildings in
> search of profit -- are not part of "public health." In fact, what
> distinguishes what I was talking about -- investment in public health --
> and what you are talking about -- an individual capitalist firm that sells
> health care -- is that the former is _not_ done for profit, whereas the
> latter is done for profit.

My original reference to "public spending" for health care meant that which is
provided through public funds, rather than being paid for directly by the
individual.  My point was that it too could be part of labor's necessities, even
though they, labor, did not buy it directly as part of their consumption basket.
And those public funds are collected through taxes, including taxes on for-profit
firms providing health care directly.  See below where I have left this point of
mine on, along with your response.

> >  The subsistence of
> >unproductive labor, btw, comes out of surplus value. By definition, it's
> >not part
> >of the subsistence of (productive) labor, i.e., that labor which produces
> >surplus
> >value for capital.  I know that makes quantification, or just the ability to
> >understand what you see, that much more difficult, but it's important to
> >be clear
> >about these things conceptually.  To get behind the numbers to try to
> >understand
> >the contradictions facing capital.
>
> I find that the usual way in which Marxists deal with the subsistence of
> unproductive labor (and with the issue of unproductive labor in general) is
> pretty unproductive in terms of increasing our understanding of the world.
> In terms of the mathematics of determining the rate of profit that affects
> capitalist accumulation, unproductive and productive labor-power play
> exactly the same role. A lot of labor is "indirectly productive," i.e.,
> promoting the effectiveness of productive labor, making the distinction
> fuzzy. Beyond that, I prefer not to debate this issue at this time.

What you suggest here is a jettisoning of marxian analysis for the "mathematics of
determining the rate of profit" in which all labor costs are the same, and are
simply a subtraction from revenue.  A marxian analysis is about the creation and
realization of surplus value in all of its exchange forms, not just profits, and
productive and unproductive labor play different roles, which can lead to
different contradictions for capital and capitalism..

Above reference:

> >Some of the potential surplus value a health care firm produces is typically
> >taxed away and used to provide part of labor's necessities, including health
> >care, eductation, etc., through public means. That is, some of the potential
> >surplus value may be redistributed to labor in the realization
> >process.  But I'm
> >getting way ahead of myself.
>
> again, I was talking about public health, not for-profit health care firms.

RO