Re: Postone on value form and capitalist production

[Gil Skillman]

Hi, Ajit.  You may well disagree with me, but it can't possibly be on the
basis of the arguments you attribute to me below, because I don't make them.
Ajit writes:

Though I have not read Postone's book under attack, I beg to disagree with
Gil's basic point that methodological individualism is the only 'currect'
way of reasoning, and all other kinds of reasoning only betray fallacies.

I never said or implied that "methodological individualism is the only
'correct' way of reasoning, and all other kinds of reasoning only betray
fallacies."  I said applying value theory to the analysis of capitalist
production involves a specific error of logical type. 

 I don't think it is improper to say that the goal of capitalism is to
accumulate.

That's not the issue, except to note that attributing "goals" to
non-conscious entities is problematic. [ I note that Ajit uses the term
"goal" in a fundamentally different sense below, as something a conscious
entity might *want* to achieve other things equal, but can't given present
constraints.]  Rather the issue is whether there are fundamental problems in
suggesting that *expansion of surplus value*, as the term is understood by
Marx, is the "goal of capitalism."  I give specific reasons why this is
problematic.

 It does not mean that the goal of the capitalist is to reinvest
his/her profit. On the contrary, the goal of the capitalists may be to
enjoy life. However, an average capitalist is incapable of doing so because
the forces of competition would compell an average capitalist to
continuously reinvest his/her profits.

Except for a slight reinterpretation on what is meant by "goal", this is
entirely consistent with what I wrote.  Indeed, it reinforces it, since it
is precisely under the sort of conditions of competition Ajit speaks of that
the fallacy of division I attribute to Postone and Marx most clearly arises.

 The thrify nature of the capitalist
is an effect of the structural causality of the system, rather than the
cause of accumulation, as Gil would imply. 

I would not imply it, and I certainly didn't say it. 

I am completely puzzled by the interpretation Ajit puts on my comments.
They do not follow from what I said, and are not consistent with what I think.

Gil

Re: Lenin-Stalin

[Louis Proyect]

Ricardo Duchesne:


By the way, I was a student of Ellen Wood. I respect her. It is just 
that she cannot let go of classical marxism even when reality no 
longer 
fits. I heard her on the radio (CBC) just this tuesday. There she 
argued that capitalism was reaching its geographical limits, and 
that the main alternative remaining for the continued accumulation of 
capital was "re-distribution" of existing wealth; hence the attack 
on the welfare state. This point, which deserves serious 
consideration, however, was not expressed as clearly as one would 
wanted. 


I agree with you. You did not get "this point"--whatever it was--as clearly
as one would expect for a decent conversation. I hope in the future that
you can summarize the ideas of other people with more clarity. I'm afraid
that nobody can comment on Ellen's comments based on your presentation of
them. She argued that capitalism was reaching its geographical limits? Does
this mean that new investments must take place on another planet? Is this
the reason the bourgeoisie is risking widespread contamination by putting
75 pounds of plutonium on Project Cassini? Is "re-distribution" of existing
wealth the main alternative for the continued accumulation of capital? I am
not sure what this is supposed to me except that she was arguing that
capitalism can no longer grow. Really? I doubt that Ellen Meiksins Wood
said anything quite like this. Paul Sweezy and Harry Magdoff would get
angry with her if she did and any sensible person wouldn't want to do
anything to bring this on. These two in a state of pique is a frightening
sight. Why only yesterday at the MR brown-bag lunch, Paul got upset with
Harry's understanding of whether or not overproduction exists in Asia
today, and got him in a headlock and started rolling around on the floor
with him. I had to separate the two.


How can you claim simultaneously that "within bourgeois democracy" 
the franshise was extended and civil rights for African-Americans 
were included yet this "bourgeois democracy is itself not 
progressive"?


How can I claim this? Because African-Americans are largely proletarian in
composition and bourgeois democracy is a device for the suppression of
working people. It gives them the illusion that their problems can be
solved by voting for capitalist or reformist parties. Bourgeois democracy
will be replaced by dictatorship when the workers' economic demands are not
being met. At that time, the choice will be between fascism and socialism.
The Weimar Republic and Kerensky's government were not viable options when
the bourgeoisie chose dictatorship. It was up to the working class to fight
for its own class rule.

The problem you need to overcome is that while Russia, as everyone 
agreed then and agrees now, was the "freest country in the 
world" after the February Revolution of 1917,  direct democracy in 
the form of the Soviets was only a short-lived reality, to be soon 
replaced by the dictatorship of the Communist Party.

The dictatorship of the Communist Party was the outcome of a series of
events that are attributable to civil war, economic blockade, the failure
of revolutions in the west, the economic deterioration of basic industry
during the NEP, persistence of authoritarian habits after the end of
Czarism, the tendency of peasants to accept a strong state, etc. In other
words, the objective material conditions of Russian society and the
relationship of class forces on a global scale had more to do with the
degeneration of the Soviet state than anything else. Despite this, we have
no alternative but to destroy capitalism through the sorts of means that
the Bolsheviks utilized. Capitalism is destroying the planet and it will
not cede power to the working people peacefully. It is a violent and
irrational system. It has already caused 2 horrific world wars and brought
us to the brink of nuclear annihilation dozens of times since 1945. The
only stance that reasonable people can take toward such a social system is
to challenge it through revolutionary means. It will never be voted out of
power. That is the reason that Lenin's party should interest us even today.
It successfully overthrew the Russian bourgeosie and began moving a
backward society toward socialism. Its failure is of the same character as
the failure of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The boss was stronger than the
workers and he won--this time. In Nicaragua, the leaders of the working
people stepped down and allowed the boss's party to rule. In the Soviet
Union, one of the leaders of the working people seized the machinery of the
state and ruled in its own interest. Thus, the USSR functioned like the
Teamsters Union with Stalin as a Russian Jimmy Hoffa. The destruction of
the Soviet Union has ushered in terrible economic suffering and empty
bourgeois democratic forms. The solution to this is revolutionary
socialism--ie., the classical Marxism you despise.  


To this I have to say that life is not a simple choice 

Kodak Shifts ALOT of Jobs Overseas

[Robert Naiman]

[P.S. I think there is more to this -- I think Kodak had a production shift 
to Mexico in '94 and that there have been enviro problems associated with 
this and that Jeff St. Clair knows about it. Anyone knows how to reach him? 
-rn]

Kodak Shifts ALOT of Jobs Overseas

Leading ALOT Member Shows Jobless Future if Fast Track Is Approved

ú Eastman Kodak Corporation is a leading member of  ALOT [America Leads on 
Trade] the pro-fast track business lobby.

ú Eastman Kodak Corporation Supported NAFTA.

ú Eastman Kodak's Promise of Increased Exports to Mexico if NAFTA were 
passed did not come true (see "NAFTA's Broken Promises, Failure to Create 
U.S. Jobs.) Instead, imports of Kodak products to the U.S. from Mexico 
increased.

ú Now, according to the attached Reuters story, Kodak plans to eliminate 
14,000 U.S. jobs and shift production to Mexico.

ú According to Reuters, "Assembly operations in some of its photo equipment 
units -- including the assembly of throw-away cameras -- are likely to be 
shifted from U.S. plants to sites with lower labor costs, like Guadalajara, 
Mexico."

ú According to Reuters, "Other manufacturing -- such as photofinishing -- 
may be completely outsourced."

ú Eastman Kodak has large U.S. production facilities (thousands of workers) 
in Rochester, New York and Windsor, Colorado.

ú According to Reuters, Kodak may sell its paper mill at Kodak Park in 
Rochester, N.Y., stop manufacturing photographic paper, and buy from outside 
vendors.


NEW YORK, Nov 5 (Reuters) - by Jeffrey Benkoe - With its long-awaited 
restructuring plan to be spelled out next Tuesday, embattled photography and 
imaging giant Eastman Kodak Co may cut 14,000 jobs, slash costs by as much 
as $1 billion, consolidate several businesses, and expand joint ventures.

"It's going to have to be a rather large restructuring in order to have 
sufficient impact and give them the flexibility to compete with firms like 
Fuji," said Robert Curran, an analyst at Merrill Lynch.

Kodak is also expected to slash film prices to recapture U.S. market share 
it has lost to competitors like Fuji Photo Film Co Ltd 4901.T. But Kodak 
is not likely to offer much detail next week, since it would complicate 
negotiations with big retail customers.

Some analysts expect Kodak to get out of businesses like microfilm and 
microfiche. "I suspect they will close down those businesses," said one 
buy-side analyst who declined to be identified. "I can't say for sure that 
they're money-losing businesses, but from what they've alluded to in the 
past, they're not good businesses."

More deals are expected similar to the one announced last month. Kodak 
signed a deal for a joint venture with Dainippon Ink  Chemicals Inc's 
4631.T Sun Chemical to supply film, paper and other products to the 
graphic arts industry.

Assembly operations in some of its photo equipment units -- including the 
assembly of throw-away cameras -- are likely to be shifted from U.S. plants 
to sites with lower labor costs, like Guadalajara, Mexico.

Other manufacturing -- such as photofinishing -- may be completely 
outsourced, analysts said, with the aim of reducing manufacturing costs by 
10 percentage points.

Analysts are looking for Kodak to attack labor costs. By some calculations, 
a minimum of 4,000 to 5,000 layoffs are expected at a cost of $300 million. 
Others see bigger cuts.

"Kodak has to cut employment levels to 80,000" from the current level of 
about 94,000, said Ulysses Yannas, an analyst at Mercer Bokert, Buckman and 
Reid.

Yannas said an estimate of $1 billion in total writeoffs that is circulating 
around Wall Street is too high. He expects a total closer to $900 million, 
with two-thirds to pay for layoffs and the other third for facilities.

Analysts said they expect Kodak senior managers to shoot for a benchmark of 
20-21 percent of costs as a percentage of sales, down from the current 27-28 
percent.

"As the business moves towards digital, they've got to take out a 
significant percentage of SGA (selling, general, and administrative)," said 
Michael Ellmann at Schroder  Co. Kodak has said it will cut the SGA 
workforce by 10 percent, but analysts expect that to be the tip of the 
iceberg.

Ellmann said that, compared with a company like Fuji, Kodak has a bloated 
staff -- due to it being a traditional vertically-integrated company.

He said Kodak may sell its paper mill at Kodak Park in Rochester, N.Y., stop 
manufacturing photographic paper, and buy from outside vendors.

Re: effective protection

[JayHecht]

Jim,

Noam Chomsky has made this point in Z and elsewhere.  He believes that NAFTA
is likely to subvert the economies of the  South  the USs 

Jason

Re: Lenin-Stalin

[Ricardo Duchesne]

 Date sent:  Tue, 04 Nov 1997 13:02:19 -0500
 Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 From:   Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject:Re: Lenin-Stalin 

 Ricardo Duchesne:
 First, let us get the history straight: Magna Carta cannot be "understood
 as a mechanism for limiting democracy" since this was strictly a FEUDAL
 document, as any serious scholar knows. This document was never intended to
 be a Bill of Rights, or a charter of liberties for the common people. 
 
 Louis Proyect:
 The Magna Carta, to the contrary, is more than a feudal document. It is the
 founding document of parliamentary democracy. As Ellen Meiksins Wood points
 out, the modern concept of democracy is rooted in it, as opposed to the
 model represented by Athenian democracy. The Magna Carta legitimizes the
 notion of representative democracy, while Athenian democracy was much more
 faithful to the notion of "rule by the people." (Demos = people; cracy =
 rule.)  She groups the Magna Carta with the 1688 English revolution
 politically. "Magna Carta, in contrast, was a charter not of a masterless
 'demos' but of masters themselves, asserting feudal privileges and the
 freedom of lordship against both Crown and popular multitude, just as the
 liberty of 1688 represented the privilege of propertied gentlemen, their
 freedom to dispose of their property and servants at will." The English
 parliament is the model for the American Congress, the French
 'estates-general' and the Russian Constituent Assembly. It is the opposite
 of genuine democracy.


Ricardo: Sorry, but in this passage Wood is saying exactly 
what I said about the Magna Carta. Read again the very next sentences 
of the passage you cited above from me, but which you conveniently 
left out, which say: "It [magna carta] was written as a feudal 
contract in which the king as an overlord promised to respect the 
traditional rights of vassals. The historical significance of this 
document is that it says a lot about the uniqueness of feudalism in 
Europe, namely, that the relation between vassal and lord was 
contractual in character, a relation between two warrior free men".

And now, what does Wood say? That the Magna Carta "was a charter not 
of masterless `demos' but of master themselves, asserting feudal 
privileges and the freedom of lordship against both Crown and popular 
multitude..." In other words the Magna Carta was a feudal document 
about the "master themselves", namely, lord and vassal, not about the 
common people! (If case you did not know, a "vassal" is also a lord).

Where Wood goes wrong (and you as a follower) is in the absurd claim 
that this FEUDAL DOCUMENT was the basis of "parliamentary democracy". 
Wood thinks it was so because she wrongly sees the English Civil War 
of the 1640s as a struggle about "parliamentary democracy". 
But this was a struggle about the rights of 
parliament against the king, about the rights and liberties of 
the "privilege propertied gentlemen" who controlled parliament (as 
Wood correctly categorizes 
them). However, if Wood thinks this "gentlemen" were the same ones 
behind the Magna Carta, she must lack a sense of history, since these 
"gentlemen" were now strongly tied to commercial and financial wealth. 


Democracy came to England later in the 19th century, and it is only 
then, in that context, that we can talk about "parliamentary 
democracy".  


By the way, I was a student of Ellen Wood. I respect her. It is just 
that she cannot let go of classical marxism even when reality no 
longer 
fits. I heard her on the radio (CBC) just this tuesday. There she 
argued that capitalism was reaching its geographical limits, and 
that the main alternative remaining for the continued accumulation of 
capital was "re-distribution" of existing wealth; hence the attack 
on the welfare state. This point, which deserves serious 
consideration, however, was not expressed as clearly as one would 
wanted. 


Earlier I (Ricardo Duchesne) wrote:
 Secondly, to say that "representative democracy is to block genuine
 decision-making by the working class" is not only too simplistic but
 betrays a complete lack of understanding of the origins of democratic
 institutions. As a recent work by Rueschemeyer and Stephens shows, the rise
 of mass suffrage (as well of other democratic institutions) was the result
 of WORKING CLASS STRUGGLES rather than of bourgeois struggles.
 

 Louis Proyect responded:

 Our differences are not over the right to vote. Within bourgeois democracy,
 the struggle to extend the franchise is progressive. The Chartist
 struggles, the suffragist movement, the civil rights struggle of
 African-Americans were all progressive. However, bourgeois democracy is
 itself not progressive. The bourgeois-democratic Russian Constituent
 Assembly was anti-democratic and deserved to be overthrown and replaced by
 direct democracy in the form of the Soviets. This is what we have
 

effective protection: 5 minutes lecture

[Fikret Ceyhun]

--_-1333260898==_


Jim Devine wrote:
Yesterday, I heard Matt Miller, a US News  World Report reporter, say on
the radio that the US has only about 3 percent tariffs on foreign goods,
while the relevant trading partners in the "fast track" debate (like Chile)
have something like 25% tariffs.

These are the official statistics, but what is the US rate of "effective
protection" on manufactured goods? How does it compare to, say, Chile?

Also, could someone give a quick theory of effective protection, which if I
understand right says that the US degree of protection is much higher than
3 percent in terms of its effects?

thanks ahead of time.


Here is a short textbook explanation of the effective rate of protection.

Fikret.




--_-1333260898==_

(This file must be converted with BinHex 4.0)

:(%9QCQ9MG'PfC5"5BA4P)'pQ)"bEh4PBh4TEfi!9d4#6Ne69d3"+J!
!5X$q0`!M,!!!'3!!!3!!!"-p!!!TCJ!!!"*D!!!
L!!!J!!!L!!!J!!!L)!!L)!!L)!!
1!!!L,J!J!!!LhJ!LhJ!LhJ!LhJ!+!!!Lk!!+!!!LmJ!LmJ"
D!!!M6!"i!!!L6J#3)m3!)!!!)q3!J!!*UN!+J!!*Y-#9!!!)L!"!!%
!!#DT!#2k!Um!!#DT!#DT!#NR!$m!!#DT!#DT!#DT!!!
!!#DT!#DT!#DT!!df,L"85%8J48C'480859C)*"9%8J6dBJ8*
29%9$9%P26Jd*9'mJC'9dCA*YD@jP)(4SC5"KBh4eB@`JC'9RFQ9P)'pQ)("bEh4
PBh4TEfiJCQpb)'ZH5"NEfePFh4TBb"TEQ4eFh4bH5`JDA3JDA-JEQ9MCA0cBA*
j)(4[)'0[ER0TC'9b)'j[G#"[EQaj)(4KFQPQCR-JGfPdD'PZ)(4SC5"TEQ4eFh4
bH5"TG(0PE'BJBR9d)'ZH5"dBA*TCQCc)'pZ)'PZF(9dFb"dD'd)(4SC5"TEQ4
eFh4bH5"eFf9c,L"8D'8JFQ9XBA4TEfjcD'P`)'YEfjR)(4KFQPQCR-JD@iJFQ9
XBA4PC#"YBA*VCA4c)'ZC#"TEQ4eFh4bD@9c)'Pc)'0KE'aPC#"dBA*TCQBJFh4
bG@0dGA*P,L""E(4SEh9RD#"dBA*TCQBJFh4bG@0dGA*P)'4TCQCPFR-JB@0bEh0
c)(0PBh4[FR-JEfBJG'KP)'9MEfj[EANX)(4KFQPQCL"bBA4PFb"RC@jPFQXE(N
JFQPcC5"KFb"`FQpNG@0dFb"YEhCP)(4SFQpeCfJJGQbD@peFb"cG'RCA-JEfB
JF(*[C(9MG'P[ELiJ8Qh)'eKG'9bD@XFb`JCQpb)'9iB@e`E'8X)(4PEQ3JG'm
JD'fC5"XEhGPFL"dBA*TCQBJFQdCA-JG'KKEL"dD'8JE@ZG@CKBh4eFQ9N)("
bEf4eBh4c)(4SBA3JBA*P)(9XG'PYBA4PE(NJF(*[C(9MC@3JGA0TEQFJG'KPE5i
J9'KTFb"`D'9ZEfePEQpZ)'Pc)(*PCQ9bFQ9N)(4[)'c)'0KFf0KC'PZCb"dBA*
TCQCc,L""EL"KE(4PFQjKG'PfC5"YC@cGA*P)(4SBA3JB@0MEh9ZG(-JCQpb)(4
SC5"TEA"[FR4KEQ0P)'pQ)(4KFQPQCL"cG(*eBh4eFQ8JDA-JG'KP)'9QCQ9MG'P
fC5"bBA4P)'pQ)("bEh4PBh4TEfiJ+%958#NZ$3d*9'KP)'9QCQ9MG'PfC5"bBA4
P)'pQ)("bEh4PBh4TEfiJ+%958#NJEfBJB@iJD@jNDACTC(9KE#"TEQ4eFh4bH5"
TFb"NC@CTEQ9N)'c)(4SC5"`CA*MC@jdB@GP)'*j)(GSD@0S)(4SC5"PER4TFQ8
JFf9d)'pQ)'%JEQdD@pZ*h-JG(*KC'8JBQbFQPPFR-JFQTFf9c)(4SC5"TEQ4
eFh4bH5Gc)(CKE(9P)'NC'9N)("PFL"eEQPd)'pQ)'peG("eG#i0$3P8Eb"TE'a
eFh4bBA4P,#"cGA"`Eh0P)'%JC'pYCA0dD@0KE'aj)("bEf4eBf9N)(4PE'9fDA0
TEfiJFf9d)(0PE'ac)'d)(4SC5"hEh*XC#"`FQPMC5"[CL!N06!`)(9ZC'9b)(9
ZFQ9cG(*TBh4PC#"dFQNC5iJ9'KP)(0PG#"TFb"`FQpNG@0PC#"eFfPZCb!N-c!
`)'pQ)'PYF'pbG'9N)'PZF(9dFb!SF'PMG(9bC5"dG@*P,#"MD'cFfPc,#"dG@j
PFL`JB@jN)(CKFQP[GA-JC@aPBh4bEfjTBb"MEfe`EfjPER4c+5iJ9'KP)#3b-$!
JC'PQCQ9bC@jMC5"LCA4hC@9Z)(4SC5!SCR*PC5edFQNC5NJF(*TBf8JEfBJG'K
P)'CTEQPcD'9N)(4PE'9fDA0TEfiJFf9d)'ZC#"dD'8JBfpcG#"[CL"dD'8JD@e
`Eh*dC@3JBfpYF'pZC@jdFb"bCA"bCA0PER4c)'4[E@9cG'PM)(CKE(9P,@NC'9
N)#K@EbNZ)9ZC'9b)(9ZFQ9cG(*TBh4PC#"dFQNC5`JC'pYCA0dD@-JGQXG@8
JB@4NC@3JBfZEQpd)'9iBf9PC#!N-M!`)'pb)(4SC5"`FQPMC5"[CL"NEfePFh4
TBfXE(NJF(*[C(9MC@3JG'9XCACTFfP[EL"cCA4c)(GTE'`JCAKMC@9N)(4SBA3
JEfBJD@e`Eh*dC@3JEfjPFb"KEQ3JG'KP)'4[E@9cG'PM)(0PG(-JGfPXE#"ZEh3
JFf9XE#iJ9'KP)'j[E@PZB@`JG'bD@CQ)(*KG'8JDA-J-6!P,5eLGA3JDA-JG'K
TFb"dD'8JC@CQC@0dDACP)(*KG'8JEfBJF(*[G'9MG'P[EMmJ6NmZ)%4[E@9cG'P
M)(CKE(9P)'NC'9N)'PZ)(4SC5"`FQ9cC@jMC5"[CL"K)$%`)("PFQ0PER3JG'
bD@CQ)'pZ)'PYF'pbG'9N)(4PE'9fDA0TEfiJFf9dFb!S9M%T)'0KEL"bDA0P)(4
[)#3b06!J+'pb)#3e06!Y*$-`-#NZ)%958$dJ+Ba,9C[+5p@EcdJ+#3b06!Y*$)
`-#N[*$)`-$db058Z)4SC5!a-#"`CA*MC@jd)'j[E@PZB@`JG'bD@CQ)'XE'p
hFb"NEfePFh4TBb"fB@aeC5"KC'4PC#"dEb"bDA0P)'*j)$)e)("PFQ0PER3X)'
ZC#"dD'Pc)'Pc)(4SC5"NC@GbC@8JEfBJF(*[G'9MG'P[EL"QEh)JC'pYCA0dD@-
JF(*[C(9MCA*c,L"#GA3JDA3JDA-JG'KP)%958#"dD'd)'4PG'9bE@PZCA-JG'K
P)'9iG'9ZG#"dEb"hD'PMD#"NEfePFh4TBb"`FQpNG@0PFR-JBA*P)'LE'8JG'm
JCAK`B@jN)("bEf4eBh4TEfiJC(9P)(4[)("bEh4PBh4TEfiJCR*[E5"QEh*PD@G
Z)'0[EA"PG'PdD@pZ,L"8D'8JFQ9XBA4TEfjcD'P`)'*PG(GPC@iJG'KP)'j[E@P
ZB@`JG'bD@CQ)(*KG'8JB@jN)(4SC5"PCQCPBh4TGQ8JFQdC5"[CL"`FQpdC@0
dD@pZ)'4PF'9ZC(-JEfiJ+$%T)(4SC5"cD'bC5"[CL"TEA"[FR4PC#"TER"eG(-
JD@iJG'KP)("bEf4eBh4TEfiJF(*[Bf9cFb"KEQ3J+$)T)(4SC5"`FQ9cC@jMC5"
[FL"KBR0PEQ0P)'pQ)(4KFQPQCR-JEfiJD@e`Eh*dC@3JD@j`GA4c,L"*EA"[FfP
dD@pZ)'pQ)(4SC5!e)("PFQ0PER3JG'bD@CQ)'pZ)'PYF'pbG'9N)'PZF(9dFb"
XEhGPFR-JG'KP)%958#"[CL"K)$%`)("PFQ0PER3JEQpYD@jKE#"dBA*TCQBJEfi
JCQPZDA0SC@3JG'9XCACTFfP[EL"cCA4c)'CbEfdJ-M8JG'mJ-6FZ05"`CA*MC@j
d,Jd0#94SC5"RC@jPFQX)'C[FQeeE'%JCQpb)'0KE'0eE'dD@jR)(4SC5"PCQC
PBh4TGQ8JFQdC5"[CL"`FQpdC@0dD@pZ)'Pc)!d049*325KdCLeKG'NT,bJa,@%
T)$dJ@bia-#!Y)#JZ0LNS,M!e+9d[+$%J,5!Z0LNJ25!S,M!h+5mZ0#!p)$%h,M8
P$3ehD'9bC5"dCL"TFb"dD'8JEQpYD@jKE#"dBA*TCQBJFQdC5"[EL"dD'8JD@e
`Eh*dC@3JCQPZDA0SC@3JCfp[C#!SD@e`Eh*dC@3JG'9XCACTFfP[EL"cCA4c+5`
JB5"TFb"dD'8JGQXG@8JEfBJD@e`Eh*dC@3JD@j`GA4c)'c)'%JFfKKFQ8JEfB

Re: Postone on value form and capitalist production

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Why do you say so casually that "no one has shown that
machinofacture makes direct
human labor superflous in the production of commodities - it just
changes the character of that labor"? Marx says as much in
the Grundrisse, as I showed in two previous missives. Here he writes
unequivocally that the application of science and technology  makes
direct labor superflous, and suggests that the ltv does not apply in
advanced capitalism.


Ricardo will doubtless be interested in Postone's discussion of both
Habermas (whose argument is, well, similar to Ricardo's) and those passages
from the Grundrisse, which R has cited. Please see p. 232f of Time, Labor
and Social Domination: a reinterpretation of Marx's critical theory.
Cambridge. 1993.

There are at least two problems to work out in decreasing orders of
abstraction: first, Marx's conceptual distinction between value (labor time
as a measure of wealth) and wealth itself, the production of which has come
indeed to depend less on direct labor because of scientific and
technological advance; second, Marx's analysis of the redistribution of
value towards capitals of high organic composition and/or with a
technological monopoly  which those capitals on account of their high
profitability thus only appear to be highly productive of value. Of course
this is only to way that we need to get Marx's basic concepts right: the
distinction between wealth and value, the distinction between surplus value
and profit.

By the way, Postone  comments on methodological individualism. He also
probes why capital does indeed appear to take on the properties of a
Goal-Directed Subject.

Rakesh

Re: Postone on value form and capitalist production

[Gil Skillman]

In response to the following passage by me, 
 
 Now, ascribing goals to *systems* rather than conscious beings, as Postone
 does here, is necessarily a dicey proposition, but in any case it is clear
 that *capitalists* direct production, not *capitalism*.  Capitalists want to
 make profits; Marx made this point in describing the circuit of capital
 M-C-M', and the fact that M' must on average be greater than M for this
 circuit to make sense depends not at all on whether the elements of the
 circuit are represented in terms of labor values.

Ricardo writes:

I think you are correct that systems do not have "goals", individuals 
do. But does it follow from this that capitalism can only be 
understood in terms of the purposive action of individual 
capitalists? Is it not better to say simply that the social structures 
created by purposive capitalists act as constraints within 
which they act?   

I like your emendation, but I never said that "capitalism can only be
understood in terms of the purposive action of individual capitalists."  To
do so would just be to commit the reverse fallacy (composition) of the one I
was attributing to Postone.  The statement that "*capitalists* direct
production..." is entirely consistent with the statement that these
*individual *capitalists act within constraints of their own *collective*
making.  In other words, I subscribe to the famous methodological statement
Marx gives in the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy.

Why do you say so casually that "no one has shown that 
machinofacture makes direct 
human labor superflous in the production of commodities - it just 
changes the character of that labor"? Marx says as much in  
the Grundrisse, as I showed in two previous missives. Here he writes 
unequivocally that the application of science and technology  makes 
direct labor superflous, and suggests that the ltv does not apply in 
advanced capitalism.  

Well, you're right, the statement is overly casual.  Let me be more careful:
if "direct labor" means "living labor expended in a current production
process" than capitalist machinofacture at its current level of development
has nowhere made direct labor "superfluous", whatever Marx says in the
Grundrisse.

But supposing it did at some future date, my original point would be the
same:  individual capitalists would not take this into account, and thus
contrary to Postone's representation it does not follow that they would use
(superfluous) labor just because it is required at a *systemic* level to
guarantee the existence of surplus value.

Gil






ndividual capitalists will adopt innovations in the production process
 so long as they increase profit by reducing costs or increasing revenues for
 given inputs. A typical capitalist *necessarily* cannot think in terms of
 "increasing surplus value" when organizing production, since value is
 determined by "socially necessary labour time"--"the labour time which is
 necessary *on average*--and a single capitalist in a large capitalist
 economy necessarily cannot affect that average.  Thus, for example, a single
 capitalist under such conditions cannot possibly create relative surplus
 value.  What the capitalist *can* do is increase individual profits for
 *given* values.
 
 Now it is of course *possible* that the cumulative effect of such an
 innovation, once generally adopted, is to increase surplus value.  But that
 is a (contingent) consequence of the original motivation, and should not be
 confused with that motivation itself.  Thus, when Postone states later
(p. 342)
 
 "...because the goal of capitalist production is surplus value, it gives
 rise to an incessant drive for increased productivity..." 
 
 he puts the cart before the horse.  Capitalists strive to increase
 productivity because  this increases profits, and don't (can't) care what is
 the ultimate effect of their individual actions on surplus value, which
 pertains to the system as a whole.  
 
 A related example of such backwards reasoning is found in another passage
(327)
 
 "Thus, for example, [Marx] states that 'the law of valorization...comes
 fully into its own for the individual producer only when he produces as a
 capitalist and employes a number of workers simultaneously, i.e. when from
 the outset he sets in motion labour of a socially average character.'  This
 passage reinforces my earlier claim that Marx's determinations of value do
 not refer to market exchange alone but are intended as determinations of
 capitalist production."
 
 But the passage Postone quotes does no such thing: rather it states that the
 the conditions of capitalist production inform the "determinations of value"
 rather than vice-versa.
 
 Surprisingly (at least it was surprising to me), Postone's subsequent
analysis
 **confirms my point**, at least as it applies through the manufacturing
 stage of capitalist production (i.e. through the argument in V. I of Capital
 as developed up to Ch. 14):  

Re: Postone on value form and capitalist production

[Ricardo Duchesne]

 Date sent:  Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:22:21 -0500 (EST)
 Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 From:   Gil Skillman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject:Postone on value form and capitalist production

 Skillman writes:
 
 
 I've just finished reading the chapter in Moishe Postone's _Time, Labor, and
 Social Domination_  that Rakesh recommended to me, and it strikes me that
 the point made above is emphatically borne out in Postone's (otherwise quite
 insightful and interesting) analysis:  his application of value analysis in
 understanding the development of capitalist production is based on a
 consistent fallacy, just as in Marx, leading to consistently misleading
 conclusions, just as in Marx.
 
 The fallacy, specifically a form of the fallacy of division, asserts itself
 early on.  
 Postone's argument in Ch. 9, "The trajectory of production" is premised on
 the claim that "...the expansion of surplus value [is] the systemic goal of
 production in capitalism."
 
 Now, ascribing goals to *systems* rather than conscious beings, as Postone
 does here, is necessarily a dicey proposition, but in any case it is clear
 that *capitalists* direct production, not *capitalism*.  Capitalists want to
 make profits; Marx made this point in describing the circuit of capital
 M-C-M', and the fact that M' must on average be greater than M for this
 circuit to make sense depends not at all on whether the elements of the
 circuit are represented in terms of labor values.


I think you are correct that systems do not have "goals", individuals 
do. But does it follow from this that capitalism can only be 
understood in terms of the purposive action of individual 
capitalists? Is it not better to say simply that the social structures 
created by purposive capitalists act as constraints within 
which they act?   


Why do you say so casually that "no one has shown that 
machinofacture makes direct 
human labor superflous in the production of commodities - it just 
changes the character of that labor"? Marx says as much in  
the Grundrisse, as I showed in two previous missives. Here he writes 
unequivocally that the application of science and technology  makes 
direct labor superflous, and suggests that the ltv does not apply in 
advanced capitalism.  

ricardo


 
 Thus individual capitalists will adopt innovations in the production process
 so long as they increase profit by reducing costs or increasing revenues for
 given inputs. A typical capitalist *necessarily* cannot think in terms of
 "increasing surplus value" when organizing production, since value is
 determined by "socially necessary labour time"--"the labour time which is
 necessary *on average*--and a single capitalist in a large capitalist
 economy necessarily cannot affect that average.  Thus, for example, a single
 capitalist under such conditions cannot possibly create relative surplus
 value.  What the capitalist *can* do is increase individual profits for
 *given* values.
 
 Now it is of course *possible* that the cumulative effect of such an
 innovation, once generally adopted, is to increase surplus value.  But that
 is a (contingent) consequence of the original motivation, and should not be
 confused with that motivation itself.  Thus, when Postone states later (p. 342)
 
 "...because the goal of capitalist production is surplus value, it gives
 rise to an incessant drive for increased productivity..." 
 
 he puts the cart before the horse.  Capitalists strive to increase
 productivity because  this increases profits, and don't (can't) care what is
 the ultimate effect of their individual actions on surplus value, which
 pertains to the system as a whole.  
 
 A related example of such backwards reasoning is found in another passage (327)
 
 "Thus, for example, [Marx] states that 'the law of valorization...comes
 fully into its own for the individual producer only when he produces as a
 capitalist and employes a number of workers simultaneously, i.e. when from
 the outset he sets in motion labour of a socially average character.'  This
 passage reinforces my earlier claim that Marx's determinations of value do
 not refer to market exchange alone but are intended as determinations of
 capitalist production."
 
 But the passage Postone quotes does no such thing: rather it states that the
 the conditions of capitalist production inform the "determinations of value"
 rather than vice-versa.
 
 Surprisingly (at least it was surprising to me), Postone's subsequent analysis
 **confirms my point**, at least as it applies through the manufacturing
 stage of capitalist production (i.e. through the argument in V. I of Capital
 as developed up to Ch. 14):  Marx's analysis of the nature of capitalist
 production *does not depend* on value categories.  Striving to make a
 somewhat different point, Postone writes (p 334):
 
 "So long as human labor remains the essential productive force of material
 wealth, production for the 

Re: Kodak Shifts ALOT of Jobs Overseas

[Doug Henwood]

Jeff St Clair is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Robert Naiman wrote:

 [P.S. I think there is more to this -- I think Kodak had a production shift 
 to Mexico in '94 and that there have been enviro problems associated with 
 this and that Jeff St. Clair knows about it. Anyone knows how to reach him? 
 -rn]
 
 Kodak Shifts ALOT of Jobs Overseas
 
 Leading ALOT Member Shows Jobless Future if Fast Track Is Approved
 
 ú Eastman Kodak Corporation is a leading member of  ALOT [America Leads on 
 Trade] the pro-fast track business lobby.
 
 ú Eastman Kodak Corporation Supported NAFTA.
 
 ú Eastman Kodak's Promise of Increased Exports to Mexico if NAFTA were 
 passed did not come true (see "NAFTA's Broken Promises, Failure to Create 
 U.S. Jobs.) Instead, imports of Kodak products to the U.S. from Mexico 
 increased.
 
 ú Now, according to the attached Reuters story, Kodak plans to eliminate 
 14,000 U.S. jobs and shift production to Mexico.
 
 ú According to Reuters, "Assembly operations in some of its photo equipment 
 units -- including the assembly of throw-away cameras -- are likely to be 
 shifted from U.S. plants to sites with lower labor costs, like Guadalajara, 
 Mexico."
 
 ú According to Reuters, "Other manufacturing -- such as photofinishing -- 
 may be completely outsourced."
 
 ú Eastman Kodak has large U.S. production facilities (thousands of workers) 
 in Rochester, New York and Windsor, Colorado.
 
 ú According to Reuters, Kodak may sell its paper mill at Kodak Park in 
 Rochester, N.Y., stop manufacturing photographic paper, and buy from outside 
 vendors.
 
 
 NEW YORK, Nov 5 (Reuters) - by Jeffrey Benkoe - With its long-awaited 
 restructuring plan to be spelled out next Tuesday, embattled photography and 
 imaging giant Eastman Kodak Co may cut 14,000 jobs, slash costs by as much 
 as $1 billion, consolidate several businesses, and expand joint ventures.
 
 "It's going to have to be a rather large restructuring in order to have 
 sufficient impact and give them the flexibility to compete with firms like 
 Fuji," said Robert Curran, an analyst at Merrill Lynch.
 
 Kodak is also expected to slash film prices to recapture U.S. market share 
 it has lost to competitors like Fuji Photo Film Co Ltd 4901.T. But Kodak 
 is not likely to offer much detail next week, since it would complicate 
 negotiations with big retail customers.
 
 Some analysts expect Kodak to get out of businesses like microfilm and 
 microfiche. "I suspect they will close down those businesses," said one 
 buy-side analyst who declined to be identified. "I can't say for sure that 
 they're money-losing businesses, but from what they've alluded to in the 
 past, they're not good businesses."
 
 More deals are expected similar to the one announced last month. Kodak 
 signed a deal for a joint venture with Dainippon Ink  Chemicals Inc's 
 4631.T Sun Chemical to supply film, paper and other products to the 
 graphic arts industry.
 
 Assembly operations in some of its photo equipment units -- including the 
 assembly of throw-away cameras -- are likely to be shifted from U.S. plants 
 to sites with lower labor costs, like Guadalajara, Mexico.
 
 Other manufacturing -- such as photofinishing -- may be completely 
 outsourced, analysts said, with the aim of reducing manufacturing costs by 
 10 percentage points.
 
 Analysts are looking for Kodak to attack labor costs. By some calculations, 
 a minimum of 4,000 to 5,000 layoffs are expected at a cost of $300 million. 
 Others see bigger cuts.
 
 "Kodak has to cut employment levels to 80,000" from the current level of 
 about 94,000, said Ulysses Yannas, an analyst at Mercer Bokert, Buckman and 
 Reid.
 
 Yannas said an estimate of $1 billion in total writeoffs that is circulating 
 around Wall Street is too high. He expects a total closer to $900 million, 
 with two-thirds to pay for layoffs and the other third for facilities.
 
 Analysts said they expect Kodak senior managers to shoot for a benchmark of 
 20-21 percent of costs as a percentage of sales, down from the current 27-28 
 percent.
 
 "As the business moves towards digital, they've got to take out a 
 significant percentage of SGA (selling, general, and administrative)," said 
 Michael Ellmann at Schroder  Co. Kodak has said it will cut the SGA 
 workforce by 10 percent, but analysts expect that to be the tip of the 
 iceberg.
 
 Ellmann said that, compared with a company like Fuji, Kodak has a bloated 
 staff -- due to it being a traditional vertically-integrated company.
 
 He said Kodak may sell its paper mill at Kodak Park in Rochester, N.Y., stop 
 manufacturing photographic paper, and buy from outside vendors.
 
 

effective protection

[James Devine]

Yesterday, I heard Matt Miller, a US News  World Report reporter, say on
the radio that the US has only about 3 percent tariffs on foreign goods,
while the relevant trading partners in the "fast track" debate (like Chile)
have something like 25% tariffs.

These are the official statistics, but what is the US rate of "effective
protection" on manufactured goods? How does it compare to, say, Chile?

Also, could someone give a quick theory of effective protection, which if I
understand right says that the US degree of protection is much higher than
3 percent in terms of its effects?

thanks ahead of time.


in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
"The only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damned greedy."
-- Herbert Hoover

the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

[James Devine]

FW: BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

charset="iso-8859-1"

BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1997

RELEASED TODAY:  BLS will hold a series of briefings to inform members
of the public about scheduled improvements it is making to the CPI
effective with the release of data for January 1998 on Feb. 24, 1998.
These changes, which were described in detail in the December 1996 issue
of the Monthly Labor Review, are the product of a revision process
undertaken approximately every decade to update the index to account for
changes in consumers' spending patterns and the distribution of the
population around the nation 

The percentage of women either working or looking for work rose to 59
percent in 1996 from 46 percent in 1975, the Labor Department reports
(Wall Street Journal, "Work Week," page A1).

Growth in the manufacturing sector picked up in October, with demand
accelerating, the National Association of Purchasing Management reports.
The overall economy continued to grow in September for the 78th
consecutive month Manufacturing employment continued to grow, and
NAPM's price index again indicated increases in prices paid when
compared with the previous month (Daily Labor Report, page
A-3)Manufacturing activity was more robust than expected last month,
a sign that the economy got off to a strong start in the fourth quarter
.(Washington Post, page C13)

Gains in both personal income and consumer spending were smaller in
September than the month before, ending the third quarter at a less
robust pace than was suggested by last week's report on total output,
the Commerce Department reports.  Personal income rose 0.4 percent in
September, somewhat shower than the 0.6 percent in August.  Wages and
salaries increased 0.3 percent in September, after rising 0.9 percent in
August.  The moderation was spread across most industries (Daily
Labor Report, page D-1; New York Times, page D8).

Construction spending fell 1.1 percent in September, after holding
steady a month earlier, the Commerce Department said.  It was the
largest decrease since December.  Declines in commercial and government
construction more than offset an increase in housing (Daily Labor
Report, page A-4; Washington Post, page C13).

Manufacturing unexpectedly strengthened in October.  Taken with the
reports on income and construction, the statistics increase the
possibility that the Fed could raise the overnight bank lending rate to
guard against accelerating inflation, providing that last week's rout in
the stock market does not hurt consumer confidence or spending (New
York Times, page D8)_The manufacturing index report and growth in
personal income and the fact that consumer spending slackened a bit in
September are all signs of continued  economic strength and low
inflation (Wall Street Journal, page A2).

The number of workers in trade unions worldwide dropped sharply in the
last decade in nearly every part of the world, the International Labor
Office reports, with unions representing less than 20 percent of the
workforce in nearly 50 countries.  However, the decline in union members
does not necessarily mean a worldwide decline in trade union power,
according to the ILO's "World Labour Report 1997-98" Union
membership in the United States declined by 21 percent during the last
decade, according to the report, giving the United States one of the
lowest levels of unionization among industrialized countries.  The ILO
said new technologies that replaced workers with machines figured
prominently among the causes of this trend The ILO said that
globalization and technological changes have produced changes in unions'
agendas.  Unions in the United States and Canada, for example, are
focusing more on employment protection and on limiting subcontracting by
employers.  Occupational training and retraining  are considered
fundamental issues for unions in Germany and Japan.  And Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are looking at ways to encourage recruitment
into new jobs (Daily Labor Report, page A-2)_Labor Union
membership has dropped in most industrial countries between 1985 and
1995, pushed down by the shift away from manufacturing and the loss of
many unionized jobs, but unions have not lost their influence,
especially in Europe The sharpest drops took place in Central and
Eastern Europe, largely as a result of an end to compulsory unionism
.(New York Times, page A14; Wall Street Journal, "Work Week," page
A1).




b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOzQcLAAYACwAQAAMABAAHAQEggAMADgAAAM0HCwAG
AAsADgAQAAQAEgEBCYABACEAAABDOUY0QjY1MDhENTZEMTExODg4RTAwMjBBRjlDMDMwOAAOBwEE
gAEAFQAAAEZXOiBCTFMgRGFpbHkgUmVwb3J0AIcGAQ2ABAACAgACAAEDkAYAUA0AAB0D
AC4AAEAAOQCQFGlHz+q8AR4AcAABDQAAAERhaWx5IFJlcG9ydAACAXEAAQAAACAA

BUSINESS WEEK: Income Inequality kills the poor (fwd)

[Michael Hoover]

Forwarded message:
 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 01:36:08 -0800
 From: Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject:  BUSINESS WEEK: Income Inequality kills the poor
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Nov 10, 1997
 
 THE UNHEALTHY U.S. INCOME GAP
 It's linked to higher levels of illness
 America has the highest per capita income among the world's leading
 countries. Yet despite the well-established relationship between people's
 economic status and their health, the U.S. trails a number of nations in
 life expectancy and other health indicators. Why this apparent disparity?
 
 One clue provided by British economist Richard G. Wilkinson in his recent
 book, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality, relates to
 America's widening gap between rich and poor. Wilkinson argues that health
 gains in advanced nations are more affected by levels of income inequality
 than by absolute living standards. His research indicates that life
 expectancy in such nations is relatively unrelated to average income but
 tends to be higher in countries with less inequality. Moreover, longevity
 had risen faster in those with narrowing income gaps than in those with
 widening ones.
 
 Now, Wilkinson's findings have received important corroboration in new
 studies focusing solely on health indicators within the U.S. itself. In
 one, a team led by epidemiologist George A. Kaplan, formerly of the
 California Health Services Dept. and now at the University of Michigan,
 found there was a strong correlation between statewide mortality rates and
 the degree of income inequality among the 50 states (measured by the share
 of income received by the bottom 50% of households within a state).
 
 A similar study by researchers at the Harvard University School of Public
 Health found that income disparities were associated with higher state
 death rates from cancer, heart disease, infant mortality, and homicide.
 Since both studies controlled for such factors as average income levels,
 race, and incidence of poverty, it appears that income gaps affect the
 health of more than just the poor and racial minorities. Also, while
 overall U.S. mortality rates fell during the 1980s, the Kaplan group found
 they fell more slowly in states with the greatest increases in income
 inequality.
 
 Why would income inequality affect health? In a follow-up study published
 in the latest issue of the American Journal of Public Health, the Harvard
 researchers find that income inequality is associated with low levels of
 ''social capital'': That is, residents of states with wider income
 disparities show less trust of others and lower membership in voluntary
 organizations and neighborhood groups. The Kaplan study also noted that
 such states have higher rates of violence and disability, more people
 lacking health insurance, and less investment in education.
 
 Whatever the reason, the apparent relation between income disparities and
 health seems worrisome--particularly since America's income gap shows
 little sign of narrowing.
 
 BY GENE KORETZ
-- 

Re: Postone on value form and capitalist production

[Ajit Sinha]

At 22:22 5/11/97 -0500, Gil wrote:
I've just finished reading the chapter in Moishe Postone's _Time, Labor, and
Social Domination_  that Rakesh recommended to me, and it strikes me that
the point made above is emphatically borne out in Postone's (otherwise quite
insightful and interesting) analysis:  his application of value analysis in
understanding the development of capitalist production is based on a
consistent fallacy, just as in Marx, leading to consistently misleading
conclusions, just as in Marx.

The fallacy, specifically a form of the fallacy of division, asserts itself
early on.  
Postone's argument in Ch. 9, "The trajectory of production" is premised on
the claim that "...the expansion of surplus value [is] the systemic goal of
production in capitalism."

Now, ascribing goals to *systems* rather than conscious beings, as Postone
does here, is necessarily a dicey proposition, but in any case it is clear
that *capitalists* direct production, not *capitalism*.  Capitalists want to
make profits; Marx made this point in describing the circuit of capital
M-C-M', and the fact that M' must on average be greater than M for this
circuit to make sense depends not at all on whether the elements of the
circuit are represented in terms of labor values.
__

Though I have not read Postone's book under attack, I beg to disagree with
Gil's basic point that methodological individualism is the only 'currect'
way of reasoning, and all other kinds of reasoning only betray fallacies. I
don't think it is improper to say that the goal of capitalism is to
accumulate. It does not mean that the goal of the capitalist is to reinvest
his/her profit. On the contrary, the goal of the capitalists may be to
enjoy life. However, an average capitalist is incapable of doing so because
the forces of competition would compell an average capitalist to
continuously reinvest his/her profits. The thrify nature of the capitalist
is an effect of the structural causality of the system, rather than the
cause of accumulation, as Gil would imply. 

Cheers, ajit sinha

Re: Postone on value form and capitalist production

[Rakesh Bhandari]

This post will not be about Postone, for Gil's criticism of value theory is
quite confusing.

He argues quite rightly that individual capitalists are motivated by
profit, not surplus value. He notes as well that value operates at the
level of the system as a whole: on the one hand, he reduces this to the
Ricardian insight that the value produced by an individual capitalist
depends on average skill only in that particular branch; at other times,
Gill warms up to Marx and recognizes that the unintended consequence of the
productivity increases effected by *profit*-motivated capitalists will so
lower the unit unit *values* of the commodities that enter the workers'
consumption that the systemic production of *relative surplus value*
becomes possible. That is, depsite the logical problems he finds in value
theory, Gil himself makes use of it to understand the dynamics of the
system as whole.

And of course it is wholly possible that while the growth of every single
capitalist depends on the production of relative surplus value, it is not
the intent of any one capitalist to make its production possible; indeed
increases in productivity that were restricted to individual capitalists
would only have a neglible effect on the value of labor power. Far from
being a damning critique of value theory, Gil seems to be inching his way
towards it, as in these quotes:

 Thus, for example, a single
capitalist under such conditions cannot possibly create relative surplus
value.  What the capitalist *can* do is increase individual profits for
*given* values.


Now it is of course *possible* that the cumulative effect of such an
innovation, once generally adopted, is to increase surplus value.  But that
is a (contingent) consequence of the original motivation, and should not be
confused with that motivation itself.

  Capitalists strive to increase
productivity because  this increases profits, and don't (can't) care what is
the ultimate effect of their individual actions on surplus value, which
pertains to the system as a whole.

What Gil is intimating here has been wonderfully articulated by Geoffrey Kay:

"..the success or failure of the indivuidual capitalist enterprise becomes
incresaingly dependent on upon success or failure of social capital as a
whole. The fact that individual capitalist may be unaware of this, and hold
on to a philosophy and practice of competition that lays all the onus on
individual enterprise, is besides the point. Here, as elsewhere, everything
appears to be the opposite of what it really is, and the competition among
capitalists and their mutual opposition to each other, is nothing more than
the curious manner in which they unite together to form a regular masonic
society in the face of the the working class upon which they all depend."
The Economic Theory of the Working Class. St Martins, 1979.

But of course the ceaseless efforts to increase productivity implie upward
pressure on the organic composition of capital. Of course that very cause
which has brought forth this tendency  brings forth the countertendency of
an increased rate of exploitation, as well as the emergence of new
labor-absorbing branches of production in which ever greater masses of
surplus value are pumped out--whatever the ecological consequences.

That the tendency does not always manifest itself because the very cause
that enforces it enforces the countertendency as well does not mean of
course that the tendency is not operative in capitalist development. (It of
course raises the question of why Marx thought that the tendency would work
its way, so to speak, through the countertendency.)

I think in a reference to the upward pressure on the OCC implied by the
ceaseless efforts of individual capitalists to increase productivity, Gil
writes:

 When reproduced in the aggregate, that decision may hurt
capitalists *as a whole*, but to insist that therefore individual
capitalists will avoid it is precisely to commit the fallacy of division.

As I understand it, this is the basis of Shaikh's critique of the Okishio
Theorem.

I cannot comment on the rest of the post as I have not yet figured out what
Postone means to theorise by the transition from labor time as a measure of
wealth to disposable time as that measure. In many ways, I think Postone is
struggling with the problem that baffled John Stuart Mill: why is it that
despite the introduction of technologies with which labor can both be
minimized and made worthy of human nature,  humanity has not overcome the
condition of alienated and hierachical and  ever more intensified working
conditions and deprived creative leisure (overwork for some, the pressure
of unemployment for others)--and now with looming ecological catastrophe to
boot.

 Without a better understanding of this, I think it will be impossible to
respond to the important criticisms you raise.

Rakesh